Dielectric properties
rlic...@mfire.com
profound effect on the signal passing through a wire. Thus (to pick an
example) we find interconnect, AC power, and loudspeaker cables hand
wrapped in multiple layers of natural fibre, resulting in very thick
and very expensive end products. These wrappings are, presumably,
intended to minimize distortion of the electromagnetic field
propagating along the wire. Indeed, one manufacturer (who shall
remain nameless) cautions not to allow their cables near any plastic
material or synthetic carpets: "The proximity of bad-sounding
dielectric will seriously degrade the sound of even the best cables."
Take note: "seriously degrade." Not "potentially." Not
"theoretically." But "seriously." I will give this source credit for
one thing, though: they make no attempt to explain this phenomenon
using pseudo-scientific jargon. They simply state it as fact. I am
curious to hear your comments. I must disqualify myself from
commenting being one of the benighted souls who never has heard a
difference in cables...
Rusty Boudreaux
news:blhqq...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> There is a 'school of thought' that dielectric properties have
a
> profound effect on the signal passing through a wire. Thus (to
pick an
Dielectric properties can have an enormous effect on signal
propagation when the frequency is high enough. That's one reason
why there are so many types of materials.
The question is the magnitude of the effect on audio signals.
The answer is the effects are well below the threshold of
audibility.
> example) we find interconnect, AC power, and loudspeaker cables
hand
> wrapped in multiple layers of natural fibre, resulting in very
thick
> and very expensive end products. These wrappings are,
presumably,
> intended to minimize distortion of the electromagnetic field
> propagating along the wire.
This might be true if they were designed for applications other
than audio. They are actually 'designed' to look imposing and
cool so as to justify their high price..
> remain nameless) cautions not to allow their cables near any
plastic
> material or synthetic carpets: "The proximity of bad-sounding
> dielectric will seriously degrade the sound of even the best
cables."
This is just a bold faced lie.
> Take note: "seriously degrade." Not "potentially." Not
> "theoretically." But "seriously." I will give this source
credit for
> one thing, though: they make no attempt to explain this
phenomenon
> using pseudo-scientific jargon. They simply state it as fact.
They've got their facts wrong. A scientifically valid
explaination would prevent them from marketing their products
with the claims they make.
> curious to hear your comments. I must disqualify myself from
> commenting being one of the benighted souls who never has heard
a
> difference in cables...
There's a good explaination for that. There is no audible
difference in reasonably competent (cheap) cable design.
Bruno Putzeys
1)Accept observations insofar they can be repeated. I have no problems
hearing the difference between cables, just as I hear the differences
between electronics. I can do this double blind, as long as I get to use my
music collection and my own system (bar the bit that's being swapped out of
course).
2)Accept hypotheses insofar they can lead to predictions of the phenomena.
Reject them outright otherwise. I have never heard of any "cable theory"
that brings me one inch closer to being able to construct a good sounding
cable based on it. Besides, hitherto all cablespeak has always proffered
hypotheses suggesting all sorts of nonlinearities that a simple distortion
test would reveal. That alone is enough to disprove them
Otherwise put: I hear a relatively large difference between cables. I do not
know why they sound different. I am pretty sure none of the cable vendors
does either. Some make pretty good stuff, but it would be best if they were
so honest as to say they have no idea how they managed.
Steven Sullivan
> Being scientifically minded, my attitude is:
> 1)Accept observations insofar they can be repeated. I have no problems
> hearing the difference between cables, just as I hear the differences
> between electronics. I can do this double blind, as long as I get to use my
> music collection and my own system (bar the bit that's being swapped out of
> course).
Can you report which cables you have heard differences between, when
you used DBT (I am goign to presume you used proper statistics and such)?
It would be interesting to see if there are any known
physical correlates of the brands to the differences.
--
-S.
Stewart Pinkerton
<bruno....@philips.com> wrote:
>Being scientifically minded, my attitude is:
>1)Accept observations insofar they can be repeated. I have no problems
>hearing the difference between cables, just as I hear the differences
>between electronics. I can do this double blind, as long as I get to use my
>music collection and my own system (bar the bit that's being swapped out of
>course).
This has been *claimed* many times, but it has never once been
demonstrated to be true. If you can really do this, then there's a
pool of around $4,000 for you to pick up. In four or five years, not
one person has even *tried* to collect it.
>Otherwise put: I hear a relatively large difference between cables. I do not
>know why they sound different.
Imagination............
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Michael Scarpitti
I hear difference between cables, and quite easily. Why should you deny that?
Stewart Pinkerton
Scarpitti) wrote:
I don't deny that this is your belief, I do deny that such a
'difference' actually exists in the real physical world. Note my
previous comment, that not one person in five years or so has even
*attempted* to demonstrate that 'cable sound' has any real physical
existence, despite the presence of a decent cash prize. I say that you
simply imagine these differences to exist, and that you will totally
fail to discriminate those cables when you don't *know* which one is
connected.
You and Bruno claim that you can do this, I claim that you are talking
nonsense. Care to put your ears where your mouth is?
Rusty Boudreaux
news:blnjt...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> I hear difference between cables, and quite easily. Why should
you deny that?
Perceptual bias.
No human has ever been able to reliably distinguish cables of
reasonable design. Cables can and do measure differently but the
effect on audio signals is many orders of magnitude less than the
threshold of hearing.
If you can hear cable differences either the cables are broken,
miswired, or you're imagining a difference. I'm not trying to
insult you. The effect of listener bias has been well documented
for nearly a century. It happens even with the best of us.
Michael Scarpitti
I posted a description of my experince in comparing $50 Monster
interconnect cables against $100 Monster ones in the other thread.
Michael Scarpitti
On or about November of 2001, I purchased Monster interconnect for my
CD player-to-preamp connection. The price was about $100 for the pair.
I had previously purchased the $50/pair Monster interconnect. When the
package arrived, I sat down and listened carefully to my system with
the old cables in place, to get an impression fresh in my mind, of a
familiar recording. Then I switched the cables. I heard only a very
subtle difference, but it was an improvement (mostly in the high end).
I listened for a while, then returned the $50 cables to the system.
There was an immediate sense of loss of detail and imaging. The
surprising thing, though, was that there was more 'lost' than was
gained going the other way. I repeated this switching in and out a
number of times, always with the same result. There was always more
'lost' than 'gained' when switching between the two sets of cables,
and there were always the same differences. Imaging was better, and
highs were smoother with the $100 cables. Lows seemed unaffacted by
the cables.
Hearing is a complex activity. The ear and brain must adapt readily to
improvement that takes it nearer to reality, and accept it as real
quite easily. One the brain 'relaxes', the difference between a system
that sounds not quite as good, and which again requires the brain to
make that little extra effort, is more noticeable. The brain must
'work' to make the inferior sound acceptable to us, and when a better
cable is thrown in, the difference is not immediately perceived for
that reason. Once the brain is relaxed, though, and the inferior cable
is replaced, the brain immediately notices the change and goes to work
again.
Rusty Boudreaux
> I posted a description of my experince in comparing $50 Monster
> interconnect cables against $100 Monster ones in the other
thread.
I agree you may think or believe you can hear a difference. That
does not mean a difference exists. What you claim flies in the
face of decades of auditory study. The brain is very fallible in
this regard and is the reason for strict bias controls when
comparing cables.
If you can indeed distinguish between the cables there's a pot of
about $4,000 to collect. Good luck.
Thomas A
> <bruno....@philips.com> wrote:
>
> >Being scientifically minded, my attitude is:
> >1)Accept observations insofar they can be repeated. I have no problems
> >hearing the difference between cables, just as I hear the differences
> >between electronics. I can do this double blind, as long as I get to use my
> >music collection and my own system (bar the bit that's being swapped out of
> >course).
>
> This has been *claimed* many times, but it has never once been
> demonstrated to be true. If you can really do this, then there's a
> pool of around $4,000 for you to pick up. In four or five years, not
> one person has even *tried* to collect it.
Do you know who to contact in this matter? I know a few persons
willing to try, and I am also willing (if possible) to add $100 to the
pool. I've read some rules (# trials etc) somewhere but I've lost the
thread. I am not testing myself, but I can act as a control person to
a initial trial with the persons involved. If they would hear any
difference (which I don't believe at all), I would like to proceed
with the standardised protocol. Where and how should be test be done?
Who is the controller?
THomas
Bruno Putzeys
can't guarantee I'd spend it on cables.
"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:blmq0...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Thomas A
I know of one person at the Swedish Acoustical Soceity who invited the
audio press for 15 years to make a cable test. The rules were that
they can choose type of cables, time, place, duration, short or long
time switching, as they wished. The only criterion was that the test
must be done double-blind. The challenge is still valid, however, no
one has tried or accepted the challenge during these 15 years. Have
you ever participated in a blindtest experiment when you have a
control person making the switching? I have, and I have never heard
any difference between cables.
Nousaine
Your description of these differences are similar to the ones made to me by
well over a dozen people over the past decade.
Exactly none of whom were able to reliably identify the same cables, sometimes
in their personal reference systems, when listening bias controls were
implemented. One of the subjects was the 'designer' of the regionally branded
cables in question.
Stewart Pinkerton
Scarpitti) wrote:
Yes, we've heard all this before, and it is simply irrelevant, since
you *knew* which cables were connected. The point is that neither you
nor anyone else has demonstrated an ability to hear all these
wonderful 'differences' when they didn't actually *know* which cable
was connected. In other words, sighted testing is useless for the
discrimination of subtle sonic differences. In the case of cables of
course, the 'differences' are *way* below the threshold of hearing,
and are frequently on the edge of what can even be measured!
All you proved in the above 'test', is that you have an imagination
which is as vivid as that of most humans.
>Hearing is a complex activity. The ear and brain must adapt readily to
>improvement that takes it nearer to reality, and accept it as real
>quite easily. One the brain 'relaxes', the difference between a system
>that sounds not quite as good, and which again requires the brain to
>make that little extra effort, is more noticeable. The brain must
>'work' to make the inferior sound acceptable to us, and when a better
>cable is thrown in, the difference is not immediately perceived for
>that reason. Once the brain is relaxed, though, and the inferior cable
>is replaced, the brain immediately notices the change and goes to work
>again.
The above is meaningless, particularly since no such audible
differences among cables can be shown to exist.
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:<blmq0...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
>> On 3 Oct 2003 15:35:13 GMT, "Bruno Putzeys"
>> <bruno....@philips.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Being scientifically minded, my attitude is:
>> >1)Accept observations insofar they can be repeated. I have no problems
>> >hearing the difference between cables, just as I hear the differences
>> >between electronics. I can do this double blind, as long as I get to use my
>> >music collection and my own system (bar the bit that's being swapped out of
>> >course).
>>
>> This has been *claimed* many times, but it has never once been
>> demonstrated to be true. If you can really do this, then there's a
>> pool of around $4,000 for you to pick up. In four or five years, not
>> one person has even *tried* to collect it.
>
>Do you know who to contact in this matter?
Me, for one. Or Tom Nousaine if you're in the US..
> I know a few persons
>willing to try, and I am also willing (if possible) to add $100 to the
>pool. I've read some rules (# trials etc) somewhere but I've lost the
>thread. I am not testing myself, but I can act as a control person to
>a initial trial with the persons involved. If they would hear any
>difference (which I don't believe at all), I would like to proceed
>with the standardised protocol. Where and how should be test be done?
>Who is the controller?
Double-blind conditions with ABX protocol, with or without a
fast-switching 'ABX box'. Level to be matched to +/- 0.1dB from
20Hz-20kHz at the speaker terminals (to eliminate silliness like
comparing 30AWG bell wire to 12 AWG).
Switching to be under the control of the test subject, all components
and sound sources to be the choice of the test subject (usually the
test subject's own system and choice of music). Note that if the test
subject demands any specific piece of equipment, it is his/her
responsibility to supply it for the test period.
Test duration not fixed, but will consist of 20 trials, with the test
subject free to switch to A and B as many times as required to
establish a positive opinion as to the identity of X. A successful
identification will be judged as 16 or more correct out of 20. The
test proctor will set X according to a previously established random
pattern, and identical score sheets will record both the actual 'X'
sequance and the test subjects opinions.
Stewart Pinkerton
<bruno....@philips.com> wrote:
>Could you tell me where this pool of money is? I could use some, though I
>can't guarantee I'd spend it on cables.
It's been put up by a bunch of the regular r.a.h-e posters, and I have
an independent £1,000 prize pledged on the UK side of the pond. Tom
Nousaine is likely the best contact on the US side. Your confidence is
admirable, but we've heard all this before - *prior* to the DBT! :-)
Michael Scarpitti
You must realize that your assertion that 'bias' accounts for the
perceived effect must be demonstrated to be MORE significant than the
potentially present actual difference? If in comparing the effects of
three CD tweaking products I find one produces no effect, another
some, and a third a little more, how does 'bias' enter into it? How
can I 'modulate' my bias so that just one of the three products always
gives me nothing and the other two do, no matter how many times I try
them? How does 'bias' possibly account for this? It can't, obviously.
Bruno Putzeys
My confidence is mixed. I have no honour to lose by failing this test. Let
me explain:
Suppose I fail. You should realise this would make me very happy.
I consider myself a very good audio designer - I don't have to go anywhere
for my equipment, the stuff that I make usually lands among the best of the
best in shootouts (both sonically and measurably). I don't even need to buy
AD/DA chips, it's DIY all the way. But then it turns out that with cables I
have to turn to a bunch of wackos who have nothing but lots of time on their
hands to try out the strangest things unsupported by anything remotely
scientific. I can tell you this is not good for my ego.
So, if I do this test and find that suddenly the presence of objective
observers completely strips the cables of their ability to alter the sound,
this would be a relief that more than compensates for the non-winning of
$4000.
So either way I win :-)
Nicer still, it probably means that similar unexplainable differences I hear
between capacitors of similar specification (especially coupling caps that
have no current to speak of going through) is also imaginary, and I can
revert to using anything available at the local radio shack.
Now how do we organise this? Since admittedly I frequently run into trouble
hearing these differences in systems other than my own I'd like to do the
test in my own system. Also I'd like to be able to switch between A, B and X
at my own pace (and control the CD player). Do you have a switching system
of sorts to make this practical or should I provide one myself?
Are any of you based in Europe? I live in Belgium, you see...
Best regards,
Bruno
Bruno Putzeys
I suppose that if we use cables of similarly low impedance to insure that
levels are matched to within 0.1dB, we're easiest off.
"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:blsbl...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Stewart Pinkerton
Scarpitti) wrote:
>"Rusty Boudreaux" <rus...@knology.net> wrote in message news:<bls0n...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>> "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:blqhl...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>> > I posted a description of my experince in comparing $50 Monster
>> > interconnect cables against $100 Monster ones in the other
>> thread.
>>
>> I agree you may think or believe you can hear a difference. That
>> does not mean a difference exists. What you claim flies in the
>> face of decades of auditory study. The brain is very fallible in
>> this regard and is the reason for strict bias controls when
>> comparing cables.
>>
>> If you can indeed distinguish between the cables there's a pot of
>> about $4,000 to collect. Good luck.
>
>You must realize that your assertion that 'bias' accounts for the
>perceived effect must be demonstrated to be MORE significant than the
>potentially present actual difference? If in comparing the effects of
>three CD tweaking products I find one produces no effect, another
>some, and a third a little more, how does 'bias' enter into it?
Easily. I already explained it, but I'll be happy to demonstrate that
I can change *nothing*, and you'll still 'hear' differences.
> How
>can I 'modulate' my bias so that just one of the three products always
>gives me nothing and the other two do, no matter how many times I try
>them? How does 'bias' possibly account for this? It can't, obviously.
Sure it can - and does. You seem to be totally locked into solipsism -
if *I* heard it, then it *must* be true! Sorry, but level-matched
blind testing will demonstrate that you are simply imagining those
'differences'. As noted, there's a $4,000 prize if you prove me wrong.
Surely, you'd love to do that for free? :-)
Stewart Pinkerton
<bruno....@philips.com> wrote:
>Ah this answers a number of questions I posed somewhere else.
>I suppose that if we use cables of similarly low impedance to insure that
>levels are matched to within 0.1dB, we're easiest off.
Quite so. Not generally a problem for 'audiophile' cables of quite
different constructions and claimed performance.
Stewart Pinkerton
<bruno....@philips.com> wrote:
>My confidence is mixed. I have no honour to lose by failing this test.
How sad for you. :-)
> Let
>me explain:
>
>Suppose I fail. You should realise this would make me very happy.
>I consider myself a very good audio designer - I don't have to go anywhere
>for my equipment, the stuff that I make usually lands among the best of the
>best in shootouts (both sonically and measurably).
Aha, a soulmate!
> I don't even need to buy
>AD/DA chips, it's DIY all the way.
Not quite. I think you mean it's company freebies all the way, unless
you actually run the fab yourself..................... :-)
> But then it turns out that with cables I
>have to turn to a bunch of wackos who have nothing but lots of time on their
>hands to try out the strangest things unsupported by anything remotely
>scientific. I can tell you this is not good for my ego.
Intriguing. You seem to be agreeing with me here.
>So, if I do this test and find that suddenly the presence of objective
>observers completely strips the cables of their ability to alter the sound,
>this would be a relief that more than compensates for the non-winning of
>$4000.
>So either way I win :-)
Fairy snuff. Let me also note that most of us 'found the road to
Damascus' *after* having been 'true believers', but suddenly
discovering that we hadn't actually switched the components that we
thought we had....................
>Nicer still, it probably means that similar unexplainable differences I hear
>between capacitors of similar specification (especially coupling caps that
>have no current to speak of going through) is also imaginary, and I can
>revert to using anything available at the local radio shack.
Um, tricky one that, since I once replaced polyprops in a phono preamp
with 'superior' polystyrene caps (by Philips, as it happens), and the
sound got *worse*. Never could explain that one, but DBTs proved the
important point - the *sound* was different - and I judged it to be
worse.
>Now how do we organise this? Since admittedly I frequently run into trouble
>hearing these differences in systems other than my own I'd like to do the
>test in my own system. Also I'd like to be able to switch between A, B and X
>at my own pace (and control the CD player). Do you have a switching system
>of sorts to make this practical or should I provide one myself?
I used to have one, but not any more. For cable tests, you just need a
three-way switch for speaker cables (controlling relays close to the
speakers), or a preamp with three identical line inputs (and a 'W'
adaptor) for interconnects. Sorting out the ABX choices can be done
via a 3rd party controlling the switch (or swapping the cables) for
single-blind, which will probably be adequate for most purposes. The
self-controlled switch for ABX (with the choice of 'X' set by the test
proctor), is marginally more complex (I used a three position switch
with centre off for the 'X' setting, so that each change involved two
clicks, and of course another three position switch controlled by the
listener, for ABX selection), but not exactly rocket science - I'm
sure you can figure it out!
>Are any of you based in Europe? I live in Belgium, you see...
I'm in England - although *not* English! :-)
Bruno Putzeys
cables, one set for interconnects. They should be proof in a way that any
side effects from switching (such as relay clicks) can't give anything away.
If I succeed the test, I'm keeping the boxes for future use. If I fail, I'll
donate them to you for the good cause :-)
> I think you mean it's company freebies all the way, unless
> you actually run the fab yourself..................... :-)
I'm serious. I make my A/D and D/A converters using discrete parts, and
manage to beat available chips in the process. Only the digital processing
is done on company freebies :-)) (FPGAs mostly).
Stewart Pinkerton
<bruno....@philips.com> wrote:
In that case, you are likely living in a dream world. Without the
close coupling that's possible with silicon solutions, it's all but
impossible to achieve 24-bit linearity at all frequencies.
Bruno Putzeys
> In that case, you are likely living in a dream world. Without the
> close coupling that's possible with silicon solutions, it's all but
> impossible to achieve 24-bit linearity at all frequencies.
1) Do you know of any IC that achieves 24-bit linearity?
The state of the art in IC converters, regardless of architecture is -105dB
THD+N, which in my view is what anyone should understand under "linearity".
My own converters clock in at -116dB (at full scale).
2) You may be unaware of 1-bit conversion techniques. This is your
disadvantage, not mine. I would not be so foolish as to try building a
24-bit linear R2R ladder.
Bruno
chung
> "Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bm1ja...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> In that case, you are likely living in a dream world. Without the
>> close coupling that's possible with silicon solutions, it's all but
>> impossible to achieve 24-bit linearity at all frequencies.
>
> 1) Do you know of any IC that achieves 24-bit linearity?
> The state of the art in IC converters, regardless of architecture is -105dB
> THD+N, which in my view is what anyone should understand under "linearity".
> My own converters clock in at -116dB (at full scale).
Is that measured before or after noise-shaping?
Your statement that the best IC converters only give -105dB THD+N do not
jive with performance specs from SACD and DVD-Audio players.
> 2) You may be unaware of 1-bit conversion techniques. This is your
> disadvantage, not mine. I would not be so foolish as to try building a
> 24-bit linear R2R ladder.
Very few people are foolish enough to build a discrete DAC of more than,
oh, about 10 bits in accuracy. Matching and/or the complexity of the
logic/wiring is just too painful :).
>
> Bruno
>
Stewart Pinkerton
<bruno....@philips.com> wrote:
>"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:bm1ja...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> In that case, you are likely living in a dream world. Without the
>> close coupling that's possible with silicon solutions, it's all but
>> impossible to achieve 24-bit linearity at all frequencies.
>
>1) Do you know of any IC that achieves 24-bit linearity?
Yes, the dCS 'RingDAC'.
>The state of the art in IC converters, regardless of architecture is -105dB
>THD+N, which in my view is what anyone should understand under "linearity".
In that case, you misunderstand the nature of linearity. Unfortunate
for someone who claims to be a designer.
>My own converters clock in at -116dB (at full scale).
>2) You may be unaware of 1-bit conversion techniques. This is your
>disadvantage, not mine. I would not be so foolish as to try building a
>24-bit linear R2R ladder.
I am certainly aware of 1-bit conversion techniques, indeed I've
written patent applications based on Sigma-Delta conversion, so your
snide comment is baseless. I'm also aware of the sensitivity to jitter
of such converters. If you are not, then this is your disadvantage. I
doubt that *anyone* has attempted a 24-bit R2R ladder, although
several good 20-bit examples have been made by Burr-Brown. The hybrid
RingDAC neatly combines both technologies to provide a true 24-bit
linearity.
Dick Pierce
> "Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bm1ja...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> > In that case, you are likely living in a dream world. Without the
> > close coupling that's possible with silicon solutions, it's all but
> > impossible to achieve 24-bit linearity at all frequencies.
>
> 1) Do you know of any IC that achieves 24-bit linearity?
> The state of the art in IC converters, regardless of architecture is -105dB
> THD+N, which in my view is what anyone should understand under "linearity".
> My own converters clock in at -116dB (at full scale).
Wow. That's pretty awful: no where NEAR 24 bit linearity. Indeed,
it would seem that your figures, which are unverified, of course,
suggest you have just barely achieved 19 bits.
Ho hum, another breakthrough.
Michael Scarpitti
If I herad it 15 times, it has a high probability of truth. I did. It
does. If I heard it when I wasn't expecting to, and didn't hear when I
was, what does that mean to your account?
Like you, I was a skeptic. I still am, in that I must hear it with my
own ears. I have auditioned products that did nothing, repeatedly, and
I expected them to. I have auditioned products that did something,
repeatedly and consistently, and I expected them not to.
I have no problem at all hearing green pen changes.
Bruce Abrams
*snip*
> I have no problem at all hearing green pen changes.
Have you ever had someone play a CD for you without telling you if had been
"green penned", or telling you that it had when it hadn't? I'd suggest that
do exactly that and then report back your findings. It is an impossibility
to hear what doesn't exist and the green pen change that you think you hear
falls into the category of that which can't physically exist.
chung
Have you tried an experiment where you have two otherwise identical
CD's, except one has been inked with the green pen and the other has
not, and you listen to them? Can you tell which is which, if you don't
know which of the two you are playing?
As far as I know, no one has passed that test, i.e., no one has been
able to tell them apart.
Think about this. Why hasn't this effect been studied and taken
advantage of, if it's real? Don't you think that by now someone would
have a theory that is worthy of being published in a scientific journal,
if the effect is real?
Bruno Putzeys
there are 32 of them operating in a neat tandem has no influence of that.
So, indeed, their dacs are as linear as 1-bit converters. Your suggestion
that it "combines the two topologies" to achieve that suggests little
understanding of the basics of this trick. The use of multiple quanta is
done to reduce quantisation noise and jitter sensitivity, but has no effect
on nonlinearity.
Now, I don't buy anything for such linearity if it isn't borne out in the
THD spec. Actually this is a gripe I have with dCS converters. Why make such
a fuss if you don't have the numbers to prove you're right? dCS's website is
curiously void of proper measurement data.
After all, do I care if the distortion is caused by converter nonlinearity,
distortion of the active filter or most likely, modulation of the reference
voltage/current (which is the cause of the distortion in my converter).
I too am aware of the jitter sensitivity of 1-bit converters. If mine
hits -123dB noisewise, the only thing one might conclude is that I've got it
well under control.
Bruno
"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bm4ih...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Bruno Putzeys
> it would seem that your figures, which are unverified, of course,
> suggest you have just barely achieved 19 bits.
Which happens to be as good as it's gotten so far. Nowhere was I claiming to
have -144dB THD+N. I was saying that I build converters without using chips
that do better than state-of-the-art ICs. If you care to make nasty remarks,
make sure you make them on the right topic.
Bruno Putzeys
output after decimation (ADC).
>
> Your statement that the best IC converters only give -105dB THD+N do not >
jive with performance specs from SACD and DVD-Audio players.
Signal-to-noise ratios (especially with "A" weighting) of 120dB are not
unusual. But that's without signal. THD+N is what comes in when a signal is
present, and there 105dB is the current state of the art. The specs usually
concentrate on SNR because that's the highest number and there's some chance
of the layman understanding it.
Stewart Pinkerton
<bruno....@philips.com> wrote:
>Each of the switches in the RingDAC achieves that linearity on its own. That
>there are 32 of them operating in a neat tandem has no influence of that.
>So, indeed, their dacs are as linear as 1-bit converters.
Quite so - but much less sensitive to jitter, which makes them more
linear in a complete circuit.
>Your suggestion
>that it "combines the two topologies" to achieve that suggests little
>understanding of the basics of this trick. The use of multiple quanta is
>done to reduce quantisation noise and jitter sensitivity, but has no effect
>on nonlinearity.
My point is that the RingDAC combines multi-bit and high-oversampling
techniques to provide the voltage precision of low-bit with the jitter
insensitivity of multi-bit, and seems to provide a better compromise
than either 1-bit or 20-bit designs, as is shown by its measured
performance. Your failure to understand my comment suggests a rather
blinkered approach to converter design, especially since you also
apparently fail to understand that reduced jitter sensitivity most
certainly does affect nonlinearity in the real world. Were that not
so, then all 1-bit converters would have perfect linearity.
Stewart Pinkerton
Scarpitti) wrote:
>pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:<blvmr...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>> You seem to be totally locked into solipsism -
>> if *I* heard it, then it *must* be true! Sorry, but level-matched
>> blind testing will demonstrate that you are simply imagining those
>> 'differences'. As noted, there's a $4,000 prize if you prove me wrong.
>>
>> Surely, you'd love to do that for free? :-)
>
>If I herad it 15 times, it has a high probability of truth. I did. It
>does. If I heard it when I wasn't expecting to, and didn't hear when I
>was, what does that mean to your account?
It means nothing, when the listening is sighted.
>Like you, I was a skeptic. I still am, in that I must hear it with my
>own ears.
But you refuse to *trust* your own ears in a blind test.
>I have auditioned products that did nothing, repeatedly, and
>I expected them to. I have auditioned products that did something,
>repeatedly and consistently, and I expected them not to.
>
>I have no problem at all hearing green pen changes.
I'm sure that's true, but you continually ignore two basics (so much
for your claim to be a skeptic):
1) Sighted listening is *known* to be useless for the discrimination
of subtle sonic differences, and yet you will not even *try* a blind
test. Clearly, you do *not* trust your ears, despite your
protestations.
2) The green pen effect was a *joke*, and there is no physical
mechanism by which it *can* work. Hence, you did *not* hear anything
which exists in the physical world.
Michael Scarpitti
Prove that. I can offer counter-evidence. I tried three different
products, and the results were unambiguous and consistent, even though
the green pen did not work in all instances, it clearly did on others.
> 2) The green pen effect was a *joke*, and there is no physical
> mechanism by which it *can* work.
That's false.
>Hence, you did *not* hear anything
> which exists in the physical world.
Nonsense.
Mkuller
>1) Sighted listening is *known* to be useless for the discrimination
>of subtle sonic differences, and yet you will not even *try* a blind
>test.
Wait, you must mean "Blind listening is *known* to be useless for the
discrimination of subtle sonic differences. Come on, get it right. *Everyone*
knows DBTs remove subtle sonic differences. Can you show a published DBT that
showed any subtle differences? Of course not. What a kidder you are.
>2) The green pen effect was a *joke*, and there is no physical
>mechanism by which it *can* work. Hence, you did *not* hear anything
>which exists in the physical world.
>
Paint on a CD = physical change. According to you, "competent amps" have no
mechanism to sound different either - since you don't know how to measure the
differences. But *everyone* know amps sound different. You crack me up...
Regards,
Mike
Bruce Abrams
news:bmf6s...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:>
> >1) Sighted listening is *known* to be useless for the discrimination
> >of subtle sonic differences, and yet you will not even *try* a blind
> >test.
>
> Wait, you must mean "Blind listening is *known* to be useless for the
> discrimination of subtle sonic differences. Come on, get it right.
*Everyone*
> knows DBTs remove subtle sonic differences. Can you show a published DBT
that
> showed any subtle differences? Of course not. What a kidder you are.
I guess we're back to living with no definition of "subtle sonic
difference", since the previously quoted Swedish blind test of CD players
clearly differentiated between them. It's published, it revealed a
difference between the two players and you decided that since the difference
was described as a "brightness", it was gross and not subtle. Who's kidding
whom?
Bruce Abrams
*snip*
> > 1) Sighted listening is *known* to be useless for the discrimination
> > of subtle sonic differences, and yet you will not even *try* a blind
> > test. Clearly, you do *not* trust your ears, despite your
> > protestations.
>
> Prove that. I can offer counter-evidence. I tried three different
> products, and the results were unambiguous and consistent, even though
> the green pen did not work in all instances, it clearly did on others.
>
to. If you don't listen blind, how will you ever know that you really heard
what you thought you heard? It's like saying I can pick a glass of my
favorite Cabernet in a tasting consistently, as long I can see the labels
while I'm tasting.
> > 2) The green pen effect was a *joke*, and there is no physical
> > mechanism by which it *can* work.
>
> That's false.
Kindly explain, then, exactly what mechanism it is that results in any
electrical change that results from the application of a green pen to the
edges of a CD.
Dick Pierce
> > mechanism by which it *can* work.
>
> That's false.
Okay, Mr. Scarpitti, the technical ball is squarely in YOUR court,
you invited it there, now it's time for you to play it:
You have now claimed that there IS a physical mechanism by which
the green pen scheme works. This is a TECHNICAL claim, one that
lives or dies on its TECHNICAL merits, Please describe the
mechanism at work for us.
You have also claimed that CDs treated with the green pen have
less noise. Noise is a trivially measurable property of a signal.
Show us the consistent, repeatable and unambiguous occurance of
this reduction in noise.
Stewart Pinkerton
>> pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:>
>>1) Sighted listening is *known* to be useless for the discrimination
>>of subtle sonic differences, and yet you will not even *try* a blind
>>test.
>
>Wait, you must mean "Blind listening is *known* to be useless for the
>discrimination of subtle sonic differences. Come on, get it right. *Everyone*
>knows DBTs remove subtle sonic differences.
Mike, 'everyone knows' that crop circles are made by aliens. Your
complaint is that out here in the real world, there is *no* test which
will show that your beloved and grotesquely overpriced MIT cables
sound different from zipcord - unless of you course you *know* what's
connected.
> Can you show a published DBT that
>showed any subtle differences? Of course not. What a kidder you are.
I can certainly show DBT tests that reveal subtle but *audible*
differences. I can not show you any DBTs that show *inaudible*
differences, such as between cables.
You OTOH can show no unsighted tests of *any* kind, which show that
two cables sound different. The simple placing of a cloth over the
connections seems to magically destroy all these 'night and day'
differences that you guys keep claiming. Who's the kidder?
>>2) The green pen effect was a *joke*, and there is no physical
>>mechanism by which it *can* work. Hence, you did *not* hear anything
>>which exists in the physical world.
>>
>Paint on a CD = physical change.
Not in the output of the reading mechanism and electronics. None,
nada, zip. And why? Because there is *no* physical mechanism by which
the 'green pen' effect *can* work. All your handwaving and baseless
claims will make no difference to this basic *fact*.
>According to you, "competent amps" have no
>mechanism to sound different either
That is a flat lie, there are plenty such mechanisms.
> - since you don't know how to measure the
>differences. But *everyone* know amps sound different.
Sure they do - when you *know* which one is playing. As Zip and others
demonstrated, all these 'huge, night and day' differences magically
evaporate when you don't *know* what's playing. As ever, you think
that you speak for 'everyone', when in fact you only speak for the
gullible minority who will not acknowledge reality.
> You crack me up...
Of course I do, because you have nothing but handwaving rhetoric.
Michael Scarpitti
To prove 'bias' has the effect you say, you should try the following
(just a suggestion)
1. Get THREE samples of, say, $100 Monster cable
2. Disguise or alter their physical identity so they all look
different
3. Conduct 'open' listening tests with a significant number of test
subjects
4. Conduct the same test with three or more sample groups
5. Conduct the same test with the equipment undisguised
6. Compare results
Bruce Abrams
*snip*
> To prove 'bias' has the effect you say, you should try the following
> (just a suggestion)
>
> 1. Get THREE samples of, say, $100 Monster cable
> 2. Disguise or alter their physical identity so they all look
> different
> 3. Conduct 'open' listening tests with a significant number of test
> subjects
> 4. Conduct the same test with three or more sample groups
> 5. Conduct the same test with the equipment undisguised
> 6. Compare results
I think the test you want to perform is as follows:
1. Take 3 samples of esoteric, "high-end" cable
2. Disguise (or hide) their identity
3. Conduct 'open' listening tests with a number of test subjects
4. Determine how many of the test subjects can accurately and consistently
identify which cable is being used at any point in time after any amount of
listening.
I've performed this test many times with over a dozen interconnects and 8
different test subjects. The results of this test are what convinced me
that the high-end cable industry is essentially engaged in selling snow to
Eskimos.
A few years ago I was auditioning some interconnects...PBJ, KCAG, Audioquest
Emerald, DIY microphone cable with Neutrik RCAs and several others. I
thought I had switched from PBJ to KCAG the night before and when I sat down
to listen, I heard beautiful, crystal clear highs that had no edge or grain.
When I got up after an hour or so to switch back to the PBJ to confirm my
findings, I saw that I had in fact been listening to PBJ all allong. So I
ran out to the local Rat Shack to get some of their premium interconnects
and ordered some (with respect to Steve Lamper) dirt cheap Canare mic cable
that I terminated with Neutrik RCAs. Then I gave the lot to my wife and we
had some "fun with cables" (keeping it 'G' rated). I even invited my
brother and several other audiophile friends for a listen.
Without knowing which was playing, noone could tell the difference, yet all
had claimed to have heard cables sounding differently prior to this
experience.
Try the same test yourself and save yourself a whole lot of money and
useless "did you hear that?!?" time. It's amazing how much more music I
actually listen to now that I don't worry about things like cables and magic
bricks anymore.
Fred E. Davis
Scarpitti) wrote:
>pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:<bmehd...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
...
>> 2) The green pen effect was a *joke*, and there is no physical
>> mechanism by which it *can* work.
>
>That's false.
No, it's true. The favorite story is that the green ink 'absorbs stray
light.' While there's no evidence that it does, I decided to try a
test of my own based on the premise that if reducing a tiny amount of
stray light is good, then adding huge amounts of stray laser light is
bad. So I took an exposed, playing CD and injected >5 mW of 780 nm
laser light at every accessible angle from edge, top and bottom. There
was no audible effect, no change in error rate or correction, nothing;
there was simply *no* effect.
Nousaine
..snip to content .....
>They were unambiguous and consistent when you knew what you were listening
>to. If you don't listen blind, how will you ever know that you really heard
>what you thought you heard? It's like saying I can pick a glass of my
>favorite Cabernet in a tasting consistently, as long I can see the labels
>while I'm tasting.
Candid Camera did a great show on that topic. They poured several small glasses
of wine from the same bottle, placed a different open bottle behond each glass
and then had subjects rate each one.
Following they played back subject "comments" on the taste of each glass. At
least some,(I'm guessing that every subject was not individually reported;
maybe they were) reported radically different taste between glasses.
When told that every glass came from the same bottle subjects became quite
defensive; "Why did they taste so different then?"
The whole thing was quite entertaining and illustrates human decision
tendencies quite nicely. The whole presentation was fraught with bias
mechanisms and it illustrates why the sale staff never asks "did they sound
different?" but instead "which one did you like the best?" The latter contains
the hidden assumption that they did sound different from one another and
provides an easy answer mechanism to affirm same.
Michael Squires
Fred E. Davis <FED...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 13 Oct 2003 21:53:01 GMT, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael
>Scarpitti) wrote:
>
>>pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message
>news:<bmehd...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
> ...
>>> 2) The green pen effect was a *joke*, and there is no physical
>>> mechanism by which it *can* work.
>>
>>That's false.
>
>No, it's true. The favorite story is that the green ink 'absorbs stray
However, there was the audio CD protection scheme that was broken using
a black Sharpie. That "crack" did, however, have a reasonable explanation.
One has to be a little careful - the 1970's "golden ear" crowd were in
fact correct about problems with early solid-state devices, and it took
some engineers who were also avid listeners to pin down the problems.
One that I remember: a lot of early solid-state preamps were very
nonlinear above 20Khz and had no input filtering, and it takes only
a few minutes with a moving coil phono cartridge and a spectrum
analyzer to see that this is not true (it's not music, but it
produces audible (IM) distortion). Testing amps with 20Hz to 20Khz
sound was never going to find this problem. There were similar
problems with solid state power amps; for example, full range ESL's
would easily drive amps like the Dyna Stereo 400 into current
limiting at sound levels where Dyna MKII's would be occasionally
clipping. Vacuum tube designs would measure worse using standard
tests but would sound better than their solid-state replacements
(for example, the Marantz 7 and 7T, and the Dyna PAS-3 and PAT-4).
Mike Squires
--
Mike Squires (mikes at cs.indiana.edu) 317 233 9456 (w) 812 333 6564 (h)
mikes at siralan.org 546 N Park Ridge Rd., Bloomington, IN 47408
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>In article <bmi56...@enews4.newsguy.com>,
>Fred E. Davis <FED...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>On 13 Oct 2003 21:53:01 GMT, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael
>>Scarpitti) wrote:
>>
>>>pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message
>>news:<bmehd...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>> ...
>>>> 2) The green pen effect was a *joke*, and there is no physical
>>>> mechanism by which it *can* work.
>>>
>>>That's false.
>>
>>No, it's true. The favorite story is that the green ink 'absorbs stray
>
>However, there was the audio CD protection scheme that was broken using
>a black Sharpie. That "crack" did, however, have a reasonable explanation.
>
>One has to be a little careful - the 1970's "golden ear" crowd were in
>fact correct about problems with early solid-state devices, and it took
>some engineers who were also avid listeners to pin down the problems.
You are however missing one crucial point here. No one has *ever*
demonstrated that the 'green pen' has any effect under *unsighted*
conditions. First the observation, *then* the theorising.
Michael Scarpitti
My post was intended to be a sort of DBT on DBT itself, and unless you
didn't follow, that should have been clear. You have to establish THAT
'bias' even exists BEFORE you can use it as a explanatory mechanism.
Was that not clear?
Stewart Pinkerton
Scarpitti) wrote:
>Bruce Abrams <bru...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<bmfvo...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
>> "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:bmf6r...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>> > > 2) The green pen effect was a *joke*, and there is no physical
>> > > mechanism by which it *can* work.
>> >
>> > That's false.
>>
>> Kindly explain, then, exactly what mechanism it is that results in any
>> electrical change that results from the application of a green pen to the
>> edges of a CD.
>
>To prove 'bias' has the effect you say, you should try the following
>(just a suggestion)
See Bruce Abrams excellent reply (BTW, a similar 'accident' with amps
made the scales fall from my own eyes, back when I was a 'true
believer'). Now, how about you answer the question?
*You* claim that there *is* a mechanism for the 'green pen effect', so
exactly what do *you* claim that it is?
Bruce Abrams
> My post was intended to be a sort of DBT on DBT itself, and unless you
> didn't follow, that should have been clear. You have to establish THAT
> 'bias' even exists BEFORE you can use it as a explanatory mechanism.
>
> Was that not clear?
The existence of bias in product testing has been an accepted fact for
decades. That's why there are ALWAYS controls in place and sighted tests
are given no validity. Until you accept that as a fact, further argument is
pointless. If you wish to convince yourself that you heard something, try
hearing it without knowing that you should be. If you're happy simply
thinking that you heard something, by all means continue doing what makes
you happy. Just don't try to rationalize the decision by trying to convince
yourself or anyone else that you know with any degree of certainty what you
heard. Only a bias controlled test can prove that. Audio is no more unique
in this respect than taste testing, tactile (eg. quality of material in
clothing) or other consumer product testing. If I gave you two otherwise
identical shampoos that have different scents, your reaction to how your
hair felt after washing would be radically different. Similarly, if I gave
you two otherwise identical amps to listen that had different cases (perhaps
one with huge, heavy, useless heatsinks), your reaction to their respective
sounds would likewise be different.
Michael Scarpitti
> On 14 Oct 2003 17:57:40 GMT, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael
> Scarpitti) wrote:
>
> >Bruce Abrams <bru...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<bmfvo...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
> >> "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:bmf6r...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
> >> > > 2) The green pen effect was a *joke*, and there is no physical
> >> > > mechanism by which it *can* work.
> >> >
> >> > That's false.
> >>
> >> Kindly explain, then, exactly what mechanism it is that results in any
> >> electrical change that results from the application of a green pen to the
> >> edges of a CD.
> >
> >To prove 'bias' has the effect you say, you should try the following
> >(just a suggestion)
>
> See Bruce Abrams excellent reply (BTW, a similar 'accident' with amps
> made the scales fall from my own eyes, back when I was a 'true
> believer'). Now, how about you answer the question?
I am not, nor was I ever a 'true believer'. I was and remain a
skeptic. I hear what I hear and pay no attention whatsoever to what
anyone else claims. I'm Popeye the sailor man.
> *You* claim that there *is* a mechanism for the 'green pen effect', so
> exactly what do *you* claim that it is?
I claim my car starts every morning, does that mean I have to explain
it to you? Uh...nope!
Mkuller
>The existence of bias in product testing has been an accepted fact for
>decades. That's why there are ALWAYS controls in place and sighted tests
>are given no validity.
>Until you accept that as a fact, further argument is
>pointless. If you wish to convince yourself that you heard something, try
>hearing it without knowing that you should be. If you're happy simply
>thinking that you heard something, by all means continue doing what makes
>you happy. Just don't try to rationalize the decision by trying to convince
>yourself or anyone else that you know with any degree of certainty what you
>heard. Only a bias controlled test can prove that. Audio is no more unique
>in this respect than taste testing, tactile (eg. quality of material in
>clothing) or other consumer product testing.
>
If sighted audio components tests have no validity, 100,000 or so audiophiles
would not subscribe to Stereophile and other magazines to read them. Obviously
most audiophiles have found them useful in some way.
Yes, biases do exist. However, the problem I have with ABX-type DBTs is that it
has never been proven scientifically that:
1. they are appropriate for amateur audio enthusiasts to use for comparing
audio components using music as the source (just because DBTs are used very
differently in other settings is no proof).
2. they don't remove more than *just bias* in the audio equipment
comparisons. Until you can prove this, the rest is speculation and hand waving.
In the mean time, I would suggest "long term observational listening, with
carefully matched levels at switching" which I have described here before.
While it may not be perfect at filtering out all biases and preconceptions for
everyone - you may get some false positives - you will not get all of the false
negatives (i.e. null results) you get from ABX. So take your pick - false
positives or false negatives.
What *if* the few rigid objectivists here who insist ABX is the only answer -
are wrong, and the near 100,000 audiophiles are right? In their hearts the
ABXers must ultimately fear this, because as audiophiles they want the *best
possible* music reproduction from their systems. They would discover that the
*just-as-good-stuff* actually isn't. They would have been fooling themselves
into rationalizing the purchase of cheaper equipment that doesn't sound nearly
as good as their flawed tests showed.
On the other hand, if the rest of the audiophiles are wrong, and ABX is *the
one true way*, our systems still sound as great as we think they do - we've
just spent a few more bucks (and more time listening to cables) than we needed
to.
Regards,
Mike
Stewart Pinkerton
Scarpitti) wrote:
>Bruce Abrams <bru...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<bmhj4...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
>> A few years ago I was auditioning some interconnects...PBJ, KCAG, Audioquest
>> Emerald, DIY microphone cable with Neutrik RCAs and several others. I
>> thought I had switched from PBJ to KCAG the night before and when I sat down
>> to listen, I heard beautiful, crystal clear highs that had no edge or grain.
>> When I got up after an hour or so to switch back to the PBJ to confirm my
>> findings, I saw that I had in fact been listening to PBJ all allong. So I
>> ran out to the local Rat Shack to get some of their premium interconnects
>> and ordered some (with respect to Steve Lamper) dirt cheap Canare mic cable
>> that I terminated with Neutrik RCAs. Then I gave the lot to my wife and we
>> had some "fun with cables" (keeping it 'G' rated). I even invited my
>> brother and several other audiophile friends for a listen.
>>
>> Without knowing which was playing, noone could tell the difference, yet all
>> had claimed to have heard cables sounding differently prior to this
>> experience.
>>
>> Try the same test yourself and save yourself a whole lot of money and
>> useless "did you hear that?!?" time. It's amazing how much more music I
>> actually listen to now that I don't worry about things like cables and magic
>> bricks anymore.
>
>
>My post was intended to be a sort of DBT on DBT itself, and unless you
>didn't follow, that should have been clear. You have to establish THAT
>'bias' even exists BEFORE you can use it as a explanatory mechanism.
>
>Was that not clear?
You have read Bruce's post, you've read my posts, there's 100 years of
evidence that bias exists (and totally swamps any subtle differences
that *may* exist between components in any sighted test), and you
*still* think that because you heard it, it must be true? Sheesh!
Bruce Abrams
*snip*
> If sighted audio components tests have no validity, 100,000 or so
audiophiles
> would not subscribe to Stereophile and other magazines to read them.
Obviously
> most audiophiles have found them useful in some way.
This is a false supposition. The "high-end" industry (and the audiophiles
that proudly associate themselves with it) has been predicated on the false
premise of sighted component testing. Audiophiles who read Stereophile and
other mags have rarely, if ever, been exposed to the notion of blind
testing.
>
> Yes, biases do exist. However, the problem I have with ABX-type DBTs is
that it
> has never been proven scientifically that:
> 1. they are appropriate for amateur audio enthusiasts to use for
comparing
> audio components using music as the source (just because DBTs are used
very
> differently in other settings is no proof).
> 2. they don't remove more than *just bias* in the audio equipment
> comparisons. Until you can prove this, the rest is speculation and hand
waving.
Blind testing has been an scientifically proven and accepted element of
product testing in virtually every industry in the last 100 years. Until
you can prove that blind testing removes more than *just bias* in audio
testing, the rest is speculation and hand waving.
>
> In the mean time, I would suggest "long term observational listening, with
> carefully matched levels at switching" which I have described here before.
> While it may not be perfect at filtering out all biases and preconceptions
for
> everyone - you may get some false positives - you will not get all of the
false
> negatives (i.e. null results) you get from ABX. So take your pick - false
> positives or false negatives.
Kindly explain what your objection would be to engaging in the exact same
"long term observational listening, with carefully matched levels at
switching", only "black boxing" the equipment under review, as I've
previously discussed. Nothing would be changed except for the knowledge of
which component one was listening to.
> What *if* the few rigid objectivists here who insist ABX is the only
answer -
> are wrong, and the near 100,000 audiophiles are right? In their hearts
the
> ABXers must ultimately fear this, because as audiophiles they want the
*best
> possible* music reproduction from their systems. They would discover that
the
> *just-as-good-stuff* actually isn't. They would have been fooling
themselves
> into rationalizing the purchase of cheaper equipment that doesn't sound
nearly
> as good as their flawed tests showed.
First things first, I've never suggested that ABX is the only answer. Other
blind protocols for bias control (such as described above and previously)
are certainly better than sighted listening and avoid the potential for
false negatives that you claim are inherent in the ABX protocol.
> On the other hand, if the rest of the audiophiles are wrong, and ABX is
*the
> one true way*, our systems still sound as great as we think they do -
we've
> just spent a few more bucks (and more time listening to cables) than we
needed
> to.
Secondly and to your "worst case" point...Lets take the example of someone
who spends $3500 on speakers and is convinced to spend $1500 on various
interconnects and cables. If he were to engage in a DBT of cables and found
them to be audibly indistinguishable and therefore spend the $1500 on better
speakers or even on music, wouldn't he be far better off? This is the
genesis of my issue with the high-end cable makers. Their dubious (at best)
claims of audible superiority invariably result in worse sounding systems
for the money.
> Regards,
> Mike
Stewart Pinkerton
Scarpitti) wrote:
>pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:<bmjpn...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>> On 14 Oct 2003 17:57:40 GMT, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael
>> Scarpitti) wrote:
>>
>> >Bruce Abrams <bru...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<bmfvo...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
>> >> "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:bmf6r...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>>
>> >> > > 2) The green pen effect was a *joke*, and there is no physical
>> >> > > mechanism by which it *can* work.
>> >> >
>> >> > That's false.
>> >>
>> >> Kindly explain, then, exactly what mechanism it is that results in any
>> >> electrical change that results from the application of a green pen to the
>> >> edges of a CD.
>> >
>> >To prove 'bias' has the effect you say, you should try the following
>> >(just a suggestion)
>>
>> See Bruce Abrams excellent reply (BTW, a similar 'accident' with amps
>> made the scales fall from my own eyes, back when I was a 'true
>> believer'). Now, how about you answer the question?
>
>I am not, nor was I ever a 'true believer'. I was and remain a
>skeptic. I hear what I hear and pay no attention whatsoever to what
>anyone else claims. I'm Popeye the sailor man.
Sorry Mike, you are most certainly *not* a skeptic, you remain rooted
in your solipsistic belief that you are the only person in the world
to whom sighted bias does not apply. It seems pointless to argue with
someone so unwilling to accept objective evidence.
If you refuse to even *try* a blind test because you are utterly
convinced that what you hear in sighted testing is real, that is *not*
the mark of a skeptic, it's the mark of a deeply insecure person who
is sticking his fingers in his ears and refusing to listen to reason.
>> *You* claim that there *is* a mechanism for the 'green pen effect', so
>> exactly what do *you* claim that it is?
>
>I claim my car starts every morning, does that mean I have to explain
>it to you? Uh...nope!
In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about. Fine,
we're clear about that. I must say that you are at least consistent.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Yes, biases do exist. However, the problem I have with ABX-type DBTs is that it
>has never been proven scientifically that:
> 1. they are appropriate for amateur audio enthusiasts to use for comparing
>audio components using music as the source (just because DBTs are used very
>differently in other settings is no proof).
It's suitable for me, and I'm an amateur audio enthusiast.
> 2. they don't remove more than *just bias* in the audio equipment
>comparisons. Until you can prove this, the rest is speculation and hand waving.
I can't prove that parts of the Moon are *not* made of green cheese,
but I can easily prove that bias swamps subtle sonic differences in
sighted testing.
>In the mean time, I would suggest "long term observational listening, with
>carefully matched levels at switching" which I have described here before.
>While it may not be perfect at filtering out all biases and preconceptions for
>everyone - you may get some false positives - you will not get all of the false
>negatives (i.e. null results) you get from ABX. So take your pick - false
>positives or false negatives.
Been there, done that. When the test is unsighted, the results are the
same as for short-term quick switched tests - except that the latter
are more sensitive.
>What *if* the few rigid objectivists here who insist ABX is the only answer -
>are wrong, and the near 100,000 audiophiles are right? In their hearts the
>ABXers must ultimately fear this, because as audiophiles they want the *best
>possible* music reproduction from their systems. They would discover that the
>*just-as-good-stuff* actually isn't. They would have been fooling themselves
>into rationalizing the purchase of cheaper equipment that doesn't sound nearly
>as good as their flawed tests showed.
You are totally wrong in your assumption - don't judge others by your
own standards. The whole point of my skeptical standpoint is that I
really *do* want to know what sonic differences exist among audio
components. If you or anyone else can demonstrate an unsighted test
which reveals an audible difference not discernible under ABX testing,
then I will be *delighted* to use such a test in the future. No Mike,
it is *you* who is afraid that those outrageously expensive cables of
yours are in reality no better than zipcord.
>On the other hand, if the rest of the audiophiles are wrong, and ABX is *the
>one true way*, our systems still sound as great as we think they do - we've
>just spent a few more bucks (and more time listening to cables) than we needed
>to.
Indeed so, and to think that you could have had better speakers! :-)
Phil
If sighted audio components tests have no validity, 100,000 or so
audiophiles
> would not subscribe to Stereophile and other magazines to read them.
Obviously
> most audiophiles have found them useful in some way.
I'm one of the 100,000. Stereophile is definitely useful in some ways:
It's entertaining. It keeps me up to date on developments in the high end
audio field. It usually has lab test results that give me an idea of the
performance of the component. At the price, I see no reason not to
subscribe.
How do I feel about the sighted evaluatiions? I don't bother to read them.
Norm Strong
Steven Sullivan
> > Bruce Abrams bru...@optonline.net : wrote:
> >The existence of bias in product testing has been an accepted fact for
> >decades. That's why there are ALWAYS controls in place and sighted tests
> >are given no validity.
> >Until you accept that as a fact, further argument is
> >pointless. If you wish to convince yourself that you heard something, try
> >hearing it without knowing that you should be. If you're happy simply
> >thinking that you heard something, by all means continue doing what makes
> >you happy. Just don't try to rationalize the decision by trying to convince
> >yourself or anyone else that you know with any degree of certainty what you
> >heard. Only a bias controlled test can prove that. Audio is no more unique
> >in this respect than taste testing, tactile (eg. quality of material in
> >clothing) or other consumer product testing.
> >
> snip
> If sighted audio components tests have no validity, 100,000 or so audiophiles
> would not subscribe to Stereophile and other magazines to read them. Obviously
> most audiophiles have found them useful in some way.
True, a community of believers can impart within-group 'validity' to all
sorts of strange and objectively unsupported beliefs. That brand of
validation is only 'useful' to those who believe.
> Yes, biases do exist. However, the problem I have with ABX-type DBTs is that it
> has never been proven scientifically that:
> 1. they are appropriate for amateur audio enthusiasts to use for comparing
> audio components using music as the source (just because DBTs are used very
> differently in other settings is no proof).
> 2. they don't remove more than *just bias* in the audio equipment
> comparisons. Until you can prove this, the rest is speculation and hand waving.
It's intersting how people like you wield the cudgel of 'scientific proof'
with one hand, and the '100,000 audiophiles can't be wrong' cudgel in the
other.
From a scientific POV there's simply no need to 'prove' the efficacy of DBT;
your point #2 is jsut so much hand-waving, given that DBTs have long
been the *established standard* for validating audible difference. Any
major problems with DBT, as you conjecture for poitn #2, would have to
have been noticed by now, given *decades* of DBT use in psychoacoustic
science and in developnent of sound-producing and transmitting devices.
But alas there is *no* evidence to support conjecture #2. Therefore the
onus is on *you* to provide evidence that point #2 is a real
*problem*...and not just a mind game.
As for your point #1, if you were *really* interested in scientific
proof, you'd be advocating the use of scientific methods for component
comparison. Your own writing in TAS and here exhibits NO evidence
that you are interested in that at all. I conclude that
you aren't in the least interested in scientific proof of audible
difference.
> In the mean time, I would suggest "long term observational listening, with
> carefully matched levels at switching" which I have described here before.
Which has *demonstrated*, not conjectural , flaws.
> While it may not be perfect at filtering out all biases and preconceptions for
> everyone - you may get some false positives - you will not get all of the false
> negatives (i.e. null results) you get from ABX. So take your pick - false
> positives or false negatives.
Except..you haven't demonstrated that the negatives *are* false.
You are making serious errors of logic here, repeatedly. You are assuming
what you need to prove.
> What *if* the few rigid objectivists here who insist ABX is the only answer -
> are wrong, and the near 100,000 audiophiles are right?
> In their hearts the
> ABXers must ultimately fear this, because as audiophiles they want the *best
> possible* music reproduction from their systems. They would discover that the
> *just-as-good-stuff* actually isn't. They would have been fooling themselves
> into rationalizing the purchase of cheaper equipment that doesn't sound nearly
> as good as their flawed tests showed.
"What if' does not consistute evidence, or proof, alas.
But in the same vein:
*WHAT IF* a great many audiophile products really *don't* sound different from
their less expensive and glamorous counterparts? In their hearts subjectivists
must ultimately fear this.
> On the other hand, if the rest of the audiophiles are wrong, and ABX is *the
> one true way*, our systems still sound as great as we think they do - we've
> just spent a few more bucks (and more time listening to cables) than we needed
> to.
If the emperor really has no clothes...what does it say about the courtiers?
--
-S.
Steven Sullivan
Because there *is* a reasonable existing explanation for why that event
would occur.
Contrast this with your green pen results -- and with the fact that
the initial green pen reports were a *hoax*.
--
-S.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Your own writing in TAS and here exhibits NO evidence
>that you are interested in that at all. I conclude that
>you aren't in the least interested in scientific proof of audible
>difference.
Actually, doesn't the fact that he gets *paid* for writing purple
prose about audible difference, ring a few alarm bells concerning his
standpoint?.............
Roscoe East
> If sighted audio components tests have no validity, 100,000 or so audiophiles
> would not subscribe to Stereophile and other magazines to read them. Obviously
> most audiophiles have found them useful in some way.
>
Doesn't it seem likely (or at least possible) that much of the appeal
of the product review methodologies employed by Stereophile, TAS, etc
is the "me too" factor?
Mr. Reviewer sits down with his favorite recordings, listens to music,
swaps a few components around, and passes judgement...the reader at
home says "hey, I'm going to try that" and sooner or later finds
himself empowered with the ability to discern Depth Of Soundstage,
Mid-Bass Bloom, Etched Highs, A Lifelike Sense Of "Action", etc.
By virtue of the fact that an audiophile is by definition a hobbyist,
the only thing that seperates a Harry Pearson from a TomDick&Harry is
how long they've been listening to cool toys, & how many different
cool toys they've had the opportunity to listen to. This is a very
inclusive club; all it takes is time & money, and anyone can play.
The usefulness audiophiles find in Stereophile's product reviews has
nothing to do with whether or not those perceived differences between
audio componants are "real" or not; they appeal to other audiophiles
because they validate the reader's own opinions, and ultimately their
own self-worth.
Mkuller
>> If sighted audio components tests have no validity, 100,000 or so
>audiophiles
>> would not subscribe to Stereophile and other magazines to read them.
>Obviously
>> most audiophiles have found them useful in some way.
>
>Bruce Abrams bru...@optonline.net wrote:>
>This is a false supposition. The "high-end" industry (and the audiophiles
>that proudly associate themselves with it) has been predicated on the false
>premise of sighted component testing. Audiophiles who read Stereophile and
>other mags have rarely, if ever, been exposed to the notion of blind
>testing.
>>
Wrong. It is a subject discussed many times in Stereophile. I would bet that
the majority of audiophiles have engaged in a blind comparison of some kind.
However, if they are like me, they were amused by the results but found no real
correlation between the test and what they hear under ordinary (sighted)
conditions.
>> Yes, biases do exist. However, the problem I have with ABX-type DBTs is
>that it
>> has never been proven scientifically that:
>> 1. they are appropriate for amateur audio enthusiasts to use for
>comparing
>> audio components using music as the source (just because DBTs are used
>very
>> differently in other settings is no proof).
>> 2. they don't remove more than *just bias* in the audio equipment
>> comparisons. Until you can prove this, the rest is speculation and hand
>waving.
>
>Blind testing has been an scientifically proven and accepted element of
>product testing in virtually every industry in the last 100 years.
And blind testing is used in clinical psychometric research. So what? None of
these are the same as untrained average audiophiles using a source - music -
with questionable sensitivity for blind testing to compare audio components.
snip
>Kindly explain what your objection would be to engaging in the exact same
>"long term observational listening, with carefully matched levels at
>switching", only "black boxing" the equipment under review, as I've
>previously discussed. Nothing would be changed except for the knowledge of
>which component one was listening to.
>
I have no objection whatsoever to your "black box method". In fact I suspect
it would be superior to an ABX test because the listener's brain does not have
to switch gears to make a decision on whether an unknown sounds like A or B.
It is much closer to the way we perform relaxed observational listening to
different components.
snip
>First things first, I've never suggested that ABX is the only answer. Other
>blind protocols for bias control (such as described above and previously)
>are certainly better than sighted listening and avoid the potential for
>false negatives that you claim are inherent in the ABX protocol.
>
Agreed. However, a few other posters here seem to feel that ABX is THE only
answer.
Regards,
Mike
Mkuller
>You have read Bruce's post, you've read my posts, there's 100 years of
>evidence that bias exists (and totally swamps any subtle differences
>that *may* exist between components in any sighted test), and you
>*still* think that because you heard it, it must be true? Sheesh!
>
Stewart, you keep saying this but refuse to provide any evidence. Wow, a
hundred years. That sounds like a lot. So you should be able to provide
something in the way of evidence to convince the rest of us.
At what point do biases swamp subtle differences between components? The exact
point please. Would it be 0.1 db in loudness difference? Or would it be
1.75db of loudness difference?
Or are humans so biased that it is every single time, even listening to
speakers? How do you measure bias?
Let's say I have little or no biases - then I should be able to hear subtle
audible differences sighted, right? And then if an ABX test prevents me from
hearing the subtle differences, the test must be the problem. Right? Please
give us an explaination.
Regards,
Mike
Mkuller
>
>>Your own writing in TAS and here exhibits NO evidence
>>that you are interested in that at all. I conclude that
>>you aren't in the least interested in scientific proof of audible
>>difference.
>
>pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:>
>Actually, doesn't the fact that he gets *paid* for writing purple
>prose about audible difference, ring a few alarm bells concerning his
>standpoint?.............
>
Always looking for a conspiracy or a sinister motive, eh Stewart. Do you think
trying to impeach me will make you look more credible?
First, when I was "getting paid" for writing equipment reviews, (at least
someone thought enough of my opinions to pay me) I think the most I ever got
for a full review was $300 (2-3 months work). No one does it for the money.
After reviewing for 15 years, I gave it up in 1999 when I started my third new
business since there is a tremendous amount of time involved in doing careful,
thorough reviews (countless hours of listening to and switching equipment).
So to be accurate you should say, "used to get *paid* for writing...
about...audible differences."
Regards,
Mike
Mkuller
>True, a community of believers can impart within-group 'validity' to all
>sorts of strange and objectively unsupported beliefs. That brand of
>validation is only 'useful' to those who believe.
>
I suspect that's why the Audio Critic continues to be published.
>From a scientific POV there's simply no need to 'prove' the efficacy of DBT;
>your point #2 is jsut so much hand-waving, given that DBTs have long
>been the *established standard* for validating audible difference. Any
>major problems with DBT, as you conjecture for poitn #2, would have to
>have been noticed by now, given *decades* of DBT use in psychoacoustic
>science and in developnent of sound-producing and transmitting devices.
Ok, I think we can all agree that dbts are the *established standard* in
psychoacoustic science and research for *decades* now. So you never need to
say that again.
OK, now from a scientific POV how do you get from the above fact to claiming
that ABX is the only way for average audiophiles to identify subtle audible
differences with audio components using music as a source - since you claim to
understand they dbts are used in completely different ways for completely
different things in clinical research.
snip
>If the emperor really has no clothes...what does it say about the courtiers?
>
Perhaps it says, "Stewart, I think we have a problem."
Regards,
Mike
Audio Guy
mku...@aol.com (Mkuller) writes:
> Ok, I think we can all agree that dbts are the *established standard* in
> psychoacoustic science and research for *decades* now. So you never need to
> say that again.
>
> OK, now from a scientific POV how do you get from the above fact to claiming
> that ABX is the only way for average audiophiles to identify subtle audible
> differences with audio components using music as a source - since you claim to
> understand they dbts are used in completely different ways for completely
> different things in clinical research.
I don't remember anybody posting here that insists that only ABX can
determine differences between audio components. They do insist that
some sort of blind, and preferably double blind, test be used. An ABX
device has the advantage of allowing an individual to perform a DBT
all by themselves. If you don't like it, then don't use it. But unless
some sort of controls are used in an audio component evaluation,
one can not be sure of the perceived differences. And again, if you
have no need to be certain, then use whatever method suits you.
So let's please drop the "ABX is the only way" statements unless you
can quote someone who is pro-DBT making that statement.
Nousaine
>mku...@aol.com (Mkuller) wrote in message
>news:<bmkql...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
>> If sighted audio components tests have no validity, 100,000 or so
>audiophiles
>> would not subscribe to Stereophile and other magazines to read them.
If circulation were a criteria I'd say that the half-million subscribers of
presumably "mid-fi" S&V may know something that Stereophile readers don't (and
this is probably true) and the much larger reader base of The National Enquirer
tells us that Alien Abductions are common.
>Obviously
>> most audiophiles have found them useful in some way.
Actually I find Stereophile to be quite entertaining. It's a great source of
audio-poetry and fruitless attempts to match non-sonic open evaluation and
measurements.
But to call it useful is a stretch for me, unless you view entertainment as
"useful." Viewed in that context it may well be; but for making purchase
decisions it's fairly useless because; 1) nearly every product reviewed appears
on the Recommended Components List; 2) many of the products rated by sound
quality (A,B,C,D,E,K, etc) would appear by the measurements published in the
magazine to be sonically indistinguishable from each other (even using the
published controlled listening tests published in the magazine itself) and 3)
the publication has only recently learned how to count (last spring the RCL
issue trumeted "700 Recommended Components" when there were only a little more
than 500 on the List.
That has been rectified in the most recently published list ..... but only
after it was exposed on line.
Also the term "most" audiophiles would artifically limit the population to a
little more than 100,000 (assuming that all subscribers are audiophiles, I've
heard that Stereophile appears on the tables in muffler and beauty shops) which
implies that the circulation of S&V is much more useful to a larger group of
enthusiasts.
Of course that's just conjecture; but it's most likely more on the mark than
the other supositions which were made purely on conjecture..... a subscription
base of 100,000 (mosy likely overstated by 10-15%) showed that "most
audiophiles" found the magazine "useful." .
>
>Doesn't it seem likely (or at least possible) that much of the appeal
>of the product review methodologies employed by Stereophile, TAS, etc
>is the "me too" factor?
>
>Mr. Reviewer sits down with his favorite recordings, listens to music,
>swaps a few components around, and passes judgement...the reader at
>home says "hey, I'm going to try that" and sooner or later finds
>himself empowered with the ability to discern Depth Of Soundstage,
>Mid-Bass Bloom, Etched Highs, A Lifelike Sense Of "Action", etc.
>
>By virtue of the fact that an audiophile is by definition a hobbyist,
>the only thing that seperates a Harry Pearson from a TomDick&Harry is
>how long they've been listening to cool toys, & how many different
>cool toys they've had the opportunity to listen to. This is a very
>inclusive club; all it takes is time & money, and anyone can play.
>
>The usefulness audiophiles find in Stereophile's product reviews has
>nothing to do with whether or not those perceived differences between
>audio componants are "real" or not; they appeal to other audiophiles
>because they validate the reader's own opinions, and ultimately their
>own self-worth.
I agree. The product doesn't have to fix a problem real or imagined; the user
only has to 'think' it does.
I spoke with a manufacturer at the AESConvention who said he was dropping out
of the high-end segment because it was based mostly on owner insecurity.
Nousaine
>Steven Sullivan ssu...@panix.com wrote:>
>>True, a community of believers can impart within-group 'validity' to all
>>sorts of strange and objectively unsupported beliefs. That brand of
>>validation is only 'useful' to those who believe.
>>
>
>I suspect that's why the Audio Critic continues to be published.
>
>>From a scientific POV there's simply no need to 'prove' the efficacy of DBT;
>>your point #2 is jsut so much hand-waving, given that DBTs have long
>>been the *established standard* for validating audible difference. Any
>>major problems with DBT, as you conjecture for poitn #2, would have to
>>have been noticed by now, given *decades* of DBT use in psychoacoustic
>>science and in developnent of sound-producing and transmitting devices.
>
>Ok, I think we can all agree that dbts are the *established standard* in
>psychoacoustic science and research for *decades* now. So you never need to
>say that again.
>
>OK, now from a scientific POV how do you get from the above fact to claiming
>that ABX is the only way for average audiophiles to identify subtle audible
>differences with audio components using music as a source - since you claim
>to
>understand they dbts are used in completely different ways for completely
>different things in clinical research.
>snip
No one says that ABX is the only way to conduct bias controlled listening
tests. It's simply the most elegant and effective way.
A coin, a blanket, an inquiring mind and an honest interest in knowing the
truth are all that's needed. That's one of the most important aspects of this
line of inquiry .... sophisticated equipment and special test facilities are
not needed.
>
>>If the emperor really has no clothes...what does it say about the courtiers?
>>
>
>Perhaps it says, "Stewart, I think we have a problem."
>Regards,
>Mike
Well said if you substitute "Mike" for the first word.
Nousaine
>pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton)>
>>You have read Bruce's post, you've read my posts, there's 100 years of
>>evidence that bias exists (and totally swamps any subtle differences
>>that *may* exist between components in any sighted test), and you
>>*still* think that because you heard it, it must be true? Sheesh!
>>
>
>Stewart, you keep saying this but refuse to provide any evidence. Wow, a
>hundred years. That sounds like a lot. So you should be able to provide
>something in the way of evidence to convince the rest of us.
Here's one: "Can You Trust Your Ears" 91st AES Convention Preprint 3177.
>At what point do biases swamp subtle differences between components? The
>exact
>point please. Would it be 0.1 db in loudness difference? Or would it be
>1.75db of loudness difference?
They would swamp truly audible differences when subjects were hearing the same
thing twice in a row. Why don't you divulge the exact point where
open-listening passes signals that are masked when bias controls are
implemented?
>
>Or are humans so biased that it is every single time, even listening to
>speakers? How do you measure bias?
>
>Let's say I have little or no biases - then I should be able to hear subtle
>audible differences sighted, right? And then if an ABX test prevents me from
>hearing the subtle differences, the test must be the problem. Right? Please
>give us an explaination.
If you can "hear" subtle differences that disappear when bias controls are
implemented it can ONLY mean that the differences you claimed to hear weren't
acoustically based.
Steven Sullivan
> >Steven Sullivan ssu...@panix.com wrote:>
> >True, a community of believers can impart within-group 'validity' to all
> >sorts of strange and objectively unsupported beliefs. That brand of
> >validation is only 'useful' to those who believe.
> >
> I suspect that's why the Audio Critic continues to be published.
Except, the Audio Critic seems willing to subject its claim to scientific
testing -- so your suspicion would appear to be unfounded.
> >From a scientific POV there's simply no need to 'prove' the efficacy of DBT;
> >your point #2 is jsut so much hand-waving, given that DBTs have long
> >been the *established standard* for validating audible difference. Any
> >major problems with DBT, as you conjecture for poitn #2, would have to
> >have been noticed by now, given *decades* of DBT use in psychoacoustic
> >science and in developnent of sound-producing and transmitting devices.
> Ok, I think we can all agree that dbts are the *established standard* in
> psychoacoustic science and research for *decades* now. So you never need to
> say that again.
One can only hope.
> OK, now from a scientific POV how do you get from the above fact to claiming
> that ABX is the only way for average audiophiles to identify subtle audible
> differences with audio components using music as a source - since you claim to
> understand they dbts are used in completely different ways for completely
> different things in clinical research.
> snip
No one here has made that claim about ABX, least of all me.
So you need never offer up that strawman again, thanks.
And your claims about DBTs being used in 'completely different ways'
is belied by the facts that the AES publishes papers that involve DBTs,
and that audio manufacturers use DBTs. So someone MUST be making
that connection between academic research into audio perception,
and identification of differeences between engineered components.
It really isn't that big a leap, Mike.
> >If the emperor really has no clothes...what does it say about the courtiers?
> >
> Perhaps it says, "Stewart, I think we have a problem."
Stewart would surely be among those pointing and laughing at the emperor.
The courtiers would be *ever* so angry at him.
--
-S.
Steven Sullivan
> >mkuller wrote:>
> >> If sighted audio components tests have no validity, 100,000 or so
> >audiophiles
> >> would not subscribe to Stereophile and other magazines to read them.
> >Obviously
> >> most audiophiles have found them useful in some way.
> >
> >Bruce Abrams bru...@optonline.net wrote:>
> >This is a false supposition. The "high-end" industry (and the audiophiles
> >that proudly associate themselves with it) has been predicated on the false
> >premise of sighted component testing. Audiophiles who read Stereophile and
> >other mags have rarely, if ever, been exposed to the notion of blind
> >testing.
> >>
> Wrong. It is a subject discussed many times in Stereophile. I would bet that
> the majority of audiophiles have engaged in a blind comparison of some kind.
> However, if they are like me, they were amused by the results but found no real
> correlation between the test and what they hear under ordinary (sighted)
> conditions.
Like I said; you really aren't interested in scientific evidence or results or
proof. You're mainly interested in *confirming your sighted perceptions* -- which,
according to decades of science, run a significant chance of being *wrong*.
But you are right that Stereophile *has* considered the matter of bias on
occasion...and waffled on it or taken the utterly unsupported stance that you
take -- that 'we don't know why' sighted differences often disappear when
subjected to ABX controls. See for example the extraodinary editorial
contortions, misrerpresentation of blind testing,
and demonstrations of bias preserved in stereophile's archives:
http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?141
wherein statistical arguments offered by a reader
are used to raise the possibility of false negatives....leaving
aside the point that for *listeners who have already decided they
can hear a difference between two components under sighted conditions*,
this would not be a relevant factor. To the extent is
deals with DBT at all, Stereophile likes to conduct
'big' DBTs, using audiences full of listeners undesr sometimes
questionable conditions. It's not necessary. What's necessary
is for Stereophile to test its OWN claims made by
individuals associated witht eh magazine.
"Audiophiles' and reviewers in Stereophile commonly use language
that implies *obvious* audible difference.
Those should not be swamped by statistics in a DBT. If they are,
the logical response is NOT to question the statistical analysis
of the DBT, but to question whether the 'obvious' difference
existed at all in the first place.
Audiophiles claim that with long term listening they can
discern the difference between component A and B. THere is
no reason why this should disappear during trials like the
ones undergone by Steve Zipser at Sunshine audio, where HIS
components, and HIS music were being comapred in HIS
environment. Stereophile hides behind the 'you haven't
tested enough people' canard -- when all that's required
of THEM is for THEIR reviewers to have THEIR claims tested.
David Carlstrom challenges John Atkinson to do just
that, in the exchange of letters archived above. He points out
that the ABX box was invented so that audiophiles could more
easily test *themselves* to their satisfaction under DBT
conditions...thereby addressing the
objections that arise when test results obtained for person X
are applied to person Y.
> And blind testing is used in clinical psychometric research. So what? None of
> these are the same as untrained average audiophiles using a source - music -
> with questionable sensitivity for blind testing to compare audio components.
> snip
Except, trained 'audiophiles' HAVE been subjected to listening tests
using music -- and the results HAVE accorded with the predictions of
psychometric research -- namely, that bias often leads listeners
astray.
> >Kindly explain what your objection would be to engaging in the exact same
> >"long term observational listening, with carefully matched levels at
> >switching", only "black boxing" the equipment under review, as I've
> >previously discussed. Nothing would be changed except for the knowledge of
> >which component one was listening to.
> >
> I have no objection whatsoever to your "black box method". In fact I suspect
> it would be superior to an ABX test because the listener's brain does not have
> to switch gears to make a decision on whether an unknown sounds like A or B.
> It is much closer to the way we perform relaxed observational listening to
> different components.
> snip
There is no reason -- NONE -- that an ABX protocol could not be used
with 'long term observational listening'. In any comparison protocol,
including sighted, eventually the listener's brain has to 'switch gears' to 'make
a decision': does A sound the same or different from B? There is no reason an
ABX cannot mimic your preferred method of listening, with only ONE condition altered:
that you do not know which component is playing, when you make that decision.
> Agreed. However, a few other posters here seem to feel that ABX is THE only
> answer.
NO ONE HERE has ever made that claim.
However, a few posters here seem to think that sighted perception
*hasn't* been demonstrated conclusively to be highly prone to error...
notwithstanding decades worth of evidence.
--
-S.
Bruce Abrams
*snip*
> >Kindly explain what your objection would be to engaging in the exact same
> >"long term observational listening, with carefully matched levels at
> >switching", only "black boxing" the equipment under review, as I've
> >previously discussed. Nothing would be changed except for the knowledge
of
> >which component one was listening to.
> >
>
> I have no objection whatsoever to your "black box method". In fact I
suspect
> it would be superior to an ABX test because the listener's brain does not
have
> to switch gears to make a decision on whether an unknown sounds like A or
B.
> It is much closer to the way we perform relaxed observational listening to
> different components.
> snip
If you have no objection to blind testing under my "black box method", it is
disingenuous to continue to espouse the notion that only sighted listening
can be the final arbiter as to the existence of "subtle audible
differences." Why do you suppose that such a method is not used, in fact
editorially demanded, by magazines? (Imagine the reaction to a wine taste
test where the wines all known in advance. It would have no credibility
whatsoever.) The answer can only be that if the possibility of imagined
audible differences and preferences is eliminated, and it is "discovered"
that there is no such thing as cable sound, and there are no audible
differences between "nominally competent" amplifiers, there would be nothing
to write about, nothing to advertise, and hence no money to be made.
Bruce
Bruce Abrams
*snip*
> Or are humans so biased that it is every single time, even listening to
> speakers? How do you measure bias?
You don't measure bias. You eliminate it from the equation via blind
testing.
> Let's say I have little or no biases - then I should be able to hear
subtle
> audible differences sighted, right? And then if an ABX test prevents me
from
> hearing the subtle differences, the test must be the problem. Right?
Please
> give us an explaination.
Let's try this...there's a wonderful new anti-depression drug and it's being
tested. Everyone who is told what they're taking, and gets the drug reports
a dramatic improvement in their symptoms. That's it. No further studies
undertaken. Would you take such a medication? The FDA certainly wouldn't
approve it. Why? Because of the bias inherent in sighted tests. What if
the control group, who got a placebo, reported exactly the same results as
the folks getting the drug? You'd have to conclude that the drug was no
more effective than the placebo.
Translating to the audio world, without the willingness to agree that blind
testing is necessary, you have essentially agreed to take the drug which has
been proven to be no more effective than a placebo, because you have refused
to test it. You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to show that audio
is any different from any other consumer product.
Stewart Pinkerton
>>Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Your own writing in TAS and here exhibits NO evidence
>>>that you are interested in that at all. I conclude that
>>>you aren't in the least interested in scientific proof of audible
>>>difference.
>>
>>pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:>
>>Actually, doesn't the fact that he gets *paid* for writing purple
>>prose about audible difference, ring a few alarm bells concerning his
>>standpoint?.............
>>
>Always looking for a conspiracy or a sinister motive, eh Stewart. Do you think
>trying to impeach me will make you look more credible?
My 'credibility' is posited on my postings. OTOH, you certainly don't
have any motivation for admitting that your MIT cables sound the same
as zipcord, now do you?
>First, when I was "getting paid" for writing equipment reviews, (at least
>someone thought enough of my opinions to pay me) I think the most I ever got
>for a full review was $300 (2-3 months work). No one does it for the money.
>After reviewing for 15 years, I gave it up in 1999 when I started my third new
>business since there is a tremendous amount of time involved in doing careful,
>thorough reviews (countless hours of listening to and switching equipment).
Had you really done 'careful and throrough reviews', you would not be
droning on about 'cable sound', because you would have discovered that
it does not exist.
>So to be accurate you should say, "used to get *paid* for writing...
>about...audible differences."
Fine, but you do appear to have carried over your determination that
'everything sounds different', even though you refuse to acknowledge
the proven effectiveness of DBTs in the audio industry.
Steven Sullivan
> >pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton)>
> >>You have read Bruce's post, you've read my posts, there's 100 years of
> >>evidence that bias exists (and totally swamps any subtle differences
> >>that *may* exist between components in any sighted test), and you
> >>*still* think that because you heard it, it must be true? Sheesh!
> >>
> >
> >Stewart, you keep saying this but refuse to provide any evidence. Wow, a
> >hundred years. That sounds like a lot. So you should be able to provide
> >something in the way of evidence to convince the rest of us.
> Here's one: "Can You Trust Your Ears" 91st AES Convention Preprint 3177.
But if it doesn't confirm Mike's sighted perceptions, it won't convince him
-- he's basically *said* as much here, as have Mssrs. Atkinson et. al. in
Stereophile. The mantra is : "Thousands of audiophiles can't be wrong'.
Whereas science says: of course they can.
--
-S.
Harry Lavo
news:bmovf...@enews1.newsguy.com...
You keep forgetting to add: "or that the test mechanism utilized does not do
a good job of allowing that(those) particular difference(s) to be heard. "
Which is another possibility. Just to be complete. Good science and all
that, whot? :-)
Harry Lavo
I have given the black box idea a lot of thought, even before you brought it
up. I think it might be worthwhile for comparing two comparable amps of
similar size and weight, that is all. For example, tube amps would have to
be more vented, so tube amp vs solid state is impractical. And when you
have vents, then you most likely have the opportunity to look inside a bit,
so cover is blown. Even to keep the speaker hookups honest, you would have
to connect the amps to terminals on the box and from there to the speakers,
so simple boxes would not do. Finally, somebody would have to come into
your house and move the boxes so you couldn't guess at weight, and you'd
have to sign an oath to keep "hands off". So any test would have to be
extended over time, which brings up how do you rate? My conclusion: you
would ask indirect questions as well as direct each week, e.g. did you feel
like playing music much this week, when you did play music, were you able to
enjoy it, etc. ect. in addition to how do you rate the sound for: (you name
it). And then the "mood responses" would have to be averaged over time and
statistically analyzed.
Certainly a test for the average audiophile making a purchasing decision,
right?