You are here

Log in or register to post comments
arnyk
arnyk's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:36am
Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate?

Some good ones might encourge John and I to mix it up again.

dcrowe
dcrowe's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:39am
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

I will bite by saying that I am a convert from the blind testing faith to the extended listening camp. I used to think that differences between amplifiers were not audible, the same to be said for cables of all types. I have since done two things that changed my mind: 1. I was never satisfied with the sound of my system, and component substitutions have made improvements in my contentment, and 2. I have made a few back-of-the-envelope calculations that tell me that in theory the human ear can be very sensitive to distortions, hum, noise, etc. Consider the absolute lowest distortion it would be even theoretically possible to hear. If we have perfectly nulled out two distortion-free sine waves at a point in space in front of the speakers, and they would each be at 120 dB spl if not nulled, then introducing a 0.0001% voltage distortion into only one of the sine waves would produce a signal at the 0 dB spl audibility threshold. In a more realistic case, 0.1% distortion would produce a 60 dB spl signal. One of my current speculations is that the stereo "sweet spot", combined with the sophisticated human perception signal processing that we perform when listening, may allow something approaching interferometric sensitivity to defects in sound reproduction. That could explain any number of claimed audible differences heard by honest and perceptive commentators, from the preference for the low distortion of a Halcro amplifier to the differences in speaker cable temporal dispersion. In short, I have reached the conclusion that I must not let the sillyness that sometimes goes on in audio circles prejudice my opinion, and that I must make up my own mind on the value of each component by testing it. Double blind testing has too many issues associated with it to be trustworthy except in very clear cut cases. All in all, I find that Stereophile is a valuable resource in my ongoing process to sort all of this out. I find that a closed mind to audiophile phenomena is as counterproductive as the silliest extremes of some enthusiasts. This is a change for me, and for the better once I allowed myself to experiment without prejudice. I definitely hear differences in amplifiers, and I see enough variability in the complex load that speakers represent, and in the way amplifiers behave with varying loads, to make this audible difference credible.

ludwigvan968
ludwigvan968's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Aug 31 2005 - 9:14pm
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

I think it is interesting that audiophiles are obsessed with sound and not music. The whole debate never mentions anything about musical playback, but hearing differences in sound??? How does this help us have better musical playback?

arnyk
arnyk's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:36am
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

>I will bite by saying that I am a convert from the blind testing faith to the extended listening camp.

I'm sorry to hear that your confidence in blind testing was based only on faith.

I'm also sorry to hear that you think that blind testing requires avoidance of extended listening.

>I used to think that differences between amplifiers were not audible, the same to be said for cables of all types. I have since done two things that changed my mind: 1. I was never satisfied with the sound of my system, and component substitutions have made improvements in my contentment, and 2. I have made a few back-of-the-envelope calculations that tell me that in theory the human ear can be very sensitive to distortions, hum, noise, etc. Consider the absolute lowest distortion it would be even theoretically possible to hear. If we have perfectly nulled out two distortion-free sine waves at a point in space in front of the speakers, and they would each be at 120 dB spl if not nulled, then introducing a 0.0001% voltage distortion into only one of the sine waves would produce a signal at the 0 dB spl audibility threshold. In a more realistic case, 0.1% distortion would produce a 60 dB spl signal. One of my current speculations is that the stereo "sweet spot", combined with the sophisticated human perception signal processing that we perform when listening, may allow something approaching interferometric sensitivity to defects in sound reproduction.

For inferometry to work there has to be a reference signal. Your example seems to lack any evidence of a reference signal.

>That could explain any number of claimed audible differences heard by honest and perceptive commentators, from the preference for the low distortion of a Halcro amplifier to the differences in speaker cable temporal dispersion.

But your explanation is dependent on a critical item, namely a perfectly clean reference signal, that it has to be dismissed.

>In short, I have reached the conclusion that I must not let the sillyness that sometimes goes on in audio circles prejudice my opinion, and that I must make up my own mind on the value of each component by testing it.

So far so good.

>Double blind testing has too many issues associated with it to be trustworthy except in very clear cut cases.

As compared to what - sighted testing that is full of undesirable and prejudicial influences that are known to be very strong?

>All in all, I find that Stereophile is a valuable resource in my ongoing process to sort all of this out. I find that a closed mind to audiophile phenomena is as counterproductive as the silliest extremes of some enthusiasts.

Yes, and its easy to find many minds that are closed to the idea of bias controlled listening tests. Usually they harbor false ideas about blind testing and completely ignore the obvious flaws of sighted evaluations.

>This is a change for me, and for the better once I allowed myself to experiment without prejudice.

That would be another myth. It's impossible for a person to be without prejudice. That's another thing that is wrong with sighted evaluations.

> I definitely hear differences in amplifiers, and I see enough variability in the complex load that speakers represent, and in the way amplifiers behave with varying loads, to make this audible difference credible.

To summarize, you believe what you believe but don't think that what you believe explains why you believe what you believe!

arnyk
arnyk's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:36am
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

>I think it is interesting that audiophiles are obsessed with sound and not music.

I think that the obsession is more remote than that. In the audio production world there is a phrase "gear slut". I think that shoe often fits in the world of audiophilia as well.

>The whole debate never mentions anything about musical playback, but hearing differences in sound??? How does this help us have better musical playback?

There seems to be this belief that one can hear differences among equipment and that by hearing which equipment sounds better (better implies different), improved sound quality and enjoyment of music will result.

ludwigvan968
ludwigvan968's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Aug 31 2005 - 9:14pm
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

man you are really hungry for questions!

Anyway, the act of building/ buying hifi based off sound differences and not the systems ability sound musical is beyond me. I believe that people should pay more attention to rhythmic coherence and keeping the tune then audiophile "sounds". These are the same elements we use for listening to live music and for judging good composition, why do we do audiophiles not use it for juding their HiFi?

arnyk
arnyk's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:36am
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

>Anyway, the act of building/ buying hifi based off sound differences and not the systems ability sound musical is beyond me.

Let's say that one system sounds musical and another does not.

Obviously they sound different.

This establishes a connection between sounding different and sounding musical, no?

> I believe that people should pay more attention to rhythmic coherence and keeping the tune then audiophile "sounds".

In fact modern digital audio systems are congenitally unable to alter rhythm and tonality in any meaningful way.

So, why base judgements on differences that can't possibly exist?

>These are the same elements we use for listening to live music and for judging good composition, why do we do audiophiles not use it for juding their HiFi?

Because there's a significant difference between making music and reproducing music.

gonefishin
gonefishin's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 12:19pm
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate


Quote:
I think it is interesting that audiophiles are obsessed with sound and not music. The whole debate never mentions anything about musical playback, but hearing differences in sound???

For me...I really enjoy audio components and audio discussion as a hobby. That's exactly what it is to me...A hobby.

While music may enter into my audio hobby...it also enters into other parts of my life as well.

I mean, heck! I could easily talk about how I love the sound of Eva Cassidy's voice on my 12 year old boom box with one speaker that doesn't work. But what good would that do when we're in a forum to discuss amplifiers...or speakers.

I just suppose it's too easy for me to look at music and audio as two separate entities that may, at times, co-exist with one another.

take care,

dan

enjoy the music!

dcrowe
dcrowe's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:39am
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

>>I will bite by saying that I am a convert from the blind testing faith to the extended listening camp.

>I'm sorry to hear that your confidence in blind testing was based only on faith.

There is no unassailable objective basis for saying that double blind testing is the only way to detect differences between systems.

>I'm also sorry to hear that you think that blind testing requires avoidance of extended listening.

In practice a large sample of long duration testing is not practical, nor is it likely to maintain constant test conditions.

>>I used to think that differences between amplifiers were not audible, the same to be said for cables of all types. I have since done two things that changed my mind: 1. I was never satisfied with the sound of my system, and component substitutions have made improvements in my contentment, and 2. I have made a few back-of-the-envelope calculations that tell me that in theory the human ear can be very sensitive to distortions, hum, noise, etc. Consider the absolute lowest distortion it would be even theoretically possible to hear. If we have perfectly nulled out two distortion-free sine waves at a point in space in front of the speakers, and they would each be at 120 dB spl if not nulled, then introducing a 0.0001% voltage distortion into only one of the sine waves would produce a signal at the 0 dB spl audibility threshold. In a more realistic case, 0.1% distortion would produce a 60 dB spl signal. One of my current speculations is that the stereo "sweet spot", combined with the sophisticated human perception signal processing that we perform when listening, may allow something approaching interferometric sensitivity to defects in sound reproduction.

>For inferometry to work there has to be a reference signal. Your example seems to lack any evidence of a reference signal.

I said the speculation is that interferometric sensitivity can be approached. I did not say it was interferometry.

>>That could explain any number of claimed audible differences heard by honest and perceptive commentators, from the preference for the low distortion of a Halcro amplifier to the differences in speaker cable temporal dispersion.

>But your explanation is dependent on a critical item, namely a perfectly clean reference signal, that it has to be dismissed.

Interferometry (which this is not!!) does not depend upon a "clean refence signal". Fourier Transform Spetroscopy is done daily on chaotic white light sources.

>>In short, I have reached the conclusion that I must not let the sillyness that sometimes goes on in audio circles prejudice my opinion, and that I must make up my own mind on the value of each component by testing it.

>So far so good.

>>Double blind testing has too many issues associated with it to be trustworthy except in very clear cut cases.

>As compared to what - sighted testing that is full of undesirable and prejudicial influences that are known to be very strong?

I did not compare double blind testing to anything. I assert that it often does not detect real differences. It can only prove differences, it cannot disprove them.

>>All in all, I find that Stereophile is a valuable resource in my ongoing process to sort all of this out. I find that a closed mind to audiophile phenomena is as counterproductive as the silliest extremes of some enthusiasts.

>Yes, and its easy to find many minds that are closed to the idea of bias controlled listening tests. Usually they harbor false ideas about blind testing and completely ignore the obvious flaws of sighted evaluations.

Absolutely true.

>>This is a change for me, and for the better once I allowed myself to experiment without prejudice.

>That would be another myth. It's impossible for a person to be without prejudice. That's another thing that is wrong with sighted evaluations.

I refer only to the prejudice that double blind testing is the only acceptable test. Humans always carry pre-formed opinions about some things, or they could not survive.

>> I definitely hear differences in amplifiers, and I see enough variability in the complex load that speakers represent, and in the way amplifiers behave with varying loads, to make this audible difference credible.

>To summarize, you believe what you believe but don't think that what you believe explains why you believe what you believe!

To summarize, double blind testing cannot disprove differences that are important.

arnyk
arnyk's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:36am
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

>>>I will bite by saying that I am a convert from the blind testing faith to the extended listening camp.

>>I'm sorry to hear that your confidence in blind testing was based only on faith.

>There is no unassailable objective basis for saying that double blind testing is the only way to detect differences between systems.

Straw man argument. Nobody is saying the DBTs are the only way to detect differences between systems.

>>I'm also sorry to hear that you think that blind testing requires avoidance of extended listening.

>In practice a large sample of long duration testing is not practical,

Been there, done that. You can't tell me people can't do what others and I have routinely done.

>nor is it likely to maintain constant test conditions.

Straw man agument. No foundation has been laid for a requirement that test conditions be constant.

>>>I used to think that differences between amplifiers were not audible, the same to be said for cables of all types. I have since done two things that changed my mind: 1. I was never satisfied with the sound of my system, and component substitutions have made improvements in my contentment, and 2. I have made a few back-of-the-envelope calculations that tell me that in theory the human ear can be very sensitive to distortions, hum, noise, etc. Consider the absolute lowest distortion it would be even theoretically possible to hear. If we have perfectly nulled out two distortion-free sine waves at a point in space in front of the speakers, and they would each be at 120 dB spl if not nulled, then introducing a 0.0001% voltage distortion into only one of the sine waves would produce a signal at the 0 dB spl audibility threshold. In a more realistic case, 0.1% distortion would produce a 60 dB spl signal. One of my current speculations is that the stereo "sweet spot", combined with the sophisticated human perception signal processing that we perform when listening, may allow something approaching interferometric sensitivity to defects in sound reproduction.

>>For inferometry to work there has to be a reference signal. Your example seems to lack any evidence of a reference signal.

>I said the speculation is that interferometric sensitivity can be approached. I did not say it was interferometry.

Since you have laid no foundation for this speculation, I feel free to dismiss it out of hand. Please come back when you have even just a marginally believable story.

>>>That could explain any number of claimed audible differences heard by honest and perceptive commentators, from the preference for the low distortion of a Halcro amplifier to the differences in speaker cable temporal dispersion.

>>But your explanation is dependent on a critical item, namely a perfectly clean reference signal, that it has to be dismissed.

>Interferometry (which this is not!!) does not depend upon a "clean refence signal". Fourier Transform Spetroscopy is done daily on chaotic white light sources.

Since you've already abandoned your theory by not supporting it, there's no need for me to respond to this.

>>In short, I have reached the conclusion that I must not let the sillyness that sometimes goes on in audio circles prejudice my opinion, and that I must make up my own mind on the value of each component by testing it.

>So far so good.

>>Double blind testing has too many issues associated with it to be trustworthy except in very clear cut cases.

>As compared to what - sighted testing that is full of undesirable and prejudicial influences that are known to be very strong?

>I did not compare double blind testing to anything.

So are you saying don't test at all, or are you saying there is a better way to test?

> I assert that it often does not detect real differences. It can only prove differences, it cannot disprove them.

>>All in all, I find that Stereophile is a valuable resource in my ongoing process to sort all of this out. I find that a closed mind to audiophile phenomena is as counterproductive as the silliest extremes of some enthusiasts.

>Yes, and its easy to find many minds that are closed to the idea of bias controlled listening tests. Usually they harbor false ideas about blind testing and completely ignore the obvious flaws of sighted evaluations.

Absolutely true.

>>>This is a change for me, and for the better once I allowed myself to experiment without prejudice.

>>That would be another myth. It's impossible for a person to be without prejudice. That's another thing that is wrong with sighted evaluations.

>I refer only to the prejudice that double blind testing is the only acceptable test.

Still a straw man argument.

>>Humans always carry pre-formed opinions about some things, or they could not survive.

>> I definitely hear differences in amplifiers, and I see enough variability in the complex load that speakers represent, and in the way amplifiers behave with varying loads, to make this audible difference credible.

>To summarize, you believe what you believe but don't think that what you believe explains why you believe what you believe!

To summarize, double blind testing cannot disprove differences that are important.

How do you know that audible differences exist at all?

dcrowe
dcrowe's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:39am
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

The reply above should not have been anonymous. I thought I was going to be automatically logged in.

___________________________________________________________
Since the reply above (and below) has no new content, I think we will just have to agree to disagree.
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

arnyk
arnyk's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:36am
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

>Since the reply above (and below) has no new content, I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

You seem to have missed the following rather critical question:

How do you know that audible differences exist at all?

dcrowe
dcrowe's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:39am
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

>You seem to have missed the following rather critical question:

>How do you know that audible differences exist at all?

How do you know you exist? I am familiar with the scientific method, and with its limitations.

Axon
Axon's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 2 2005 - 1:44pm
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

Yow. What a way to break in a new forum. It's hard to contribute anything to this sort of thread that hasn't been said a million times before too. So I apologize in advance if these questions have been answered before. Also I have only worked halfway through the debate MP3 itself.

John (if you're brave enough to wade in): I'm curious as to your opinion on the growing number of blind tests that have passed - in particular the codec tuning done on HydrogenAudio, but also any anecdotal evidence of speaker tests (I'm well aware of blind testing currently being practiced, but I don't know specifics). When the means are available to conduct DBTs to a reasonable sensitivity in a reasonable amount of time, I think that there is enough evidence to grant them a lot of legitimacy, perhaps even more than subjective tests.

Arny: it's well accepted (in the skeptic community, at least) that non-rejection of the null hypothesis in a blind test does not imply acceptance of an opposing hypothesis - that is, you can't say something is transparent if it fails an ABX test, because the math doesn't support that conclusion. Obviously the failure can put a bound on how "different" one device is from another - if something is supposed to be "obviously" and "clearly" better than another, I'd want my money back if I bought it and tested 8/16 in an ABX test - but there is no consensus on how important the result really is. In general, how would you judge such a result?

arnyk
arnyk's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:36am
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

>Arny: it's well accepted (in the skeptic community, at least) that non-rejection of the null hypothesis in a blind test does not imply acceptance of an opposing hypothesis - that is, you can't say something is transparent if it fails an ABX test, because the math doesn't support that conclusion.

IOW, negative hypothesis are difficult or impossible to prove. I'm good with that.

Let's apply that well-accepted scientific principle to Unicorns. Why don't scientists believe in unicorns? Non-rejection of the null hypothesis in a search for unicorns does not imply acceptance of an opposing hypothesis - that is, that unicorns don't exist. Right? ;-)

>Obviously the failure can put a bound on how "different" one device is from another - if something is supposed to be "obviously" and "clearly" better than another, I'd want my money back if I bought it and tested 8/16 in an ABX test - but there is no consensus on how important the result really is. In general, how would you judge such a result?

I think that the widespread non-belief in Unicorns among scientists is based on a lot of attempts to actually find one coming up dry.

I think that the widespread belief that a lot of good audio gear is audibly transparent is based on a lot of attempts to actually find audible differences, coming up dry.

At my www.pcabx.com web site I tried to come up with a collection of musical passages that were technically different to reproduce transparently, and then pushed them through various audio components under various conditions and various numbers of times. The hypothesis that some of these musical passages would be audibly changed by some equipment was proven by a large number of listening tests that most careful workers will get positive results from. However, most of these positive results are limited to those cases where the signal was pushed through good equipment a number of times. In general we only push signals through audio equipment once. In one pass, the good audio equipment was sonically transparent. In some cases I also provide examples of what happens when you push these signals through poorer quality equipment. The poorer equipment was not transparent, even when the signal passed through the equipment once.

At PCABX I found a goodly number of very nice white horses and show them off, but I found no unicorns. ;-)

Thomas_A
Thomas_A's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 2:21pm
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

Just a general one about audibility (or sensitivity). It should not be so hard to find a combo of CD player-preamp-power amp (solid state) that is essentially flat down to 10 Hz, and one that fall more than 3 dB at 10 Hz. Combined with a large closed-box woofer system in a sealed room, such a difference can be "sensed", playing music material with f down to 4-5 Hz. Even under blind conditions.

Christian
Christian's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 4 2005 - 6:02am
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

Devil' advocate here

Does the fact that people often hear differences when there is none a reasonable argument against DBT ?

I use the word "often", but I have nothing to back this up.

In other word, if you have a group of people comparing A and B, would it be better to have a control group only comparing A with A ? If both group failed, what is this telling us ?

GMMiddius
GMMiddius's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 4 2005 - 7:56am
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

"Tests" are for robots. They have nothing to do with listening to music.

Christian
Christian's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 4 2005 - 6:02am
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate


Quote:
"Tests" are for robots. They have nothing to do with listening to music.

The tests or the robots ?

Maybe you don't want to know if there is any audible differences between a $20000 speaker cable and a $50 cable. Strangley enough, some people are curious about those things. Do you mind if some of us try to find the answer ?

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

20,000 for speaker cables? I would be interested in knowing what would make a cable cost that much regardless of audible differences.

Christian
Christian's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 4 2005 - 6:02am
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

That was me by the way. Forgot to log.

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

Oh, I did check out these guys. IMO they are simply frauds. Some one posted pictures of the open boxes that alegedly contain some sort of networks. They were empty.

gmsingh
gmsingh's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 4 2005 - 7:24am
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate


Quote:
Oh, I did check out these guys. IMO they are simply frauds. Some one posted pictures of the open boxes that alegedly contain some sort of networks. They were empty.


Empty? Did you let the Majik leak out?

arnyk
arnyk's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:36am
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

>Just a general one about audibility (or sensitivity). It should not be so hard to find a combo of CD player-preamp-power amp (solid state) that is essentially flat down to 10 Hz, and one that fall more than 3 dB at 10 Hz. Combined with a large closed-box woofer system in a sealed room, such a difference can be "sensed", playing music material with f down to 4-5 Hz. Even under blind conditions.

You seem to forget that matched frequency response is a common prerequisite for component comparisons. There's no controversy over the idea that components with mismatched frequency response sound different.

Thomas_A
Thomas_A's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 2:21pm
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate


Quote:
>Just a general one about audibility (or sensitivity). It should not be so hard to find a combo of CD player-preamp-power amp (solid state) that is essentially flat down to 10 Hz, and one that fall more than 3 dB at 10 Hz. Combined with a large closed-box woofer system in a sealed room, such a difference can be "sensed", playing music material with f down to 4-5 Hz. Even under blind conditions.

You seem to forget that matched frequency response is a common prerequisite for component comparisons. There's no controversy over the idea that components with mismatched frequency response sound different.

You are talking about audibility thresholds at different frequencies, not audible differences between available amps (or components) on the market. The level matching can be done at 1 kHz,

arnyk
arnyk's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:36am
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

>You are talking about audibility thresholds at different frequencies, not audible differences between available amps (or components) on the market.

Or the thresholds of audible differences at different frequencies.

> The level matching can be done at 1 kHz,

marcelo
marcelo's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 5 2005 - 1:39pm
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate


Quote:
Transparent Opus MM (over $20,000 for an 8' pair)


Quote:
I would be interested in knowing what would make a cable cost that much regardless of audible differences.

Check their website for more information. As for audible differences, I wouldn't be surprise if there was some. Are they more "transparent" ? I don't know.

Now, I'm sure that for this much there might be something inside the boxes, abd if a cable does something to sound, it is simply modifying the original signal, thus, equalizing the sound. Now, this EQ is fixed and cannot be modified by the user, I wonder why then audiophiles as ourselves are so much afraid of using a good EQ to make the same as the cables would but with limitless options, or better yet, why not using a room correction rig such as TacT's? seems like equalizing through a cable is accepted but talk about using a real equalizer scares us...
brgds, marcelo

Xenophanes
Xenophanes's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 9 months ago
Joined: Sep 7 2005 - 2:48pm
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

Well, I am very happy to see you are posting here. I will try to keep from gushing!

In the debate, I thought John Atkinson did about as well as anyone could defending his magazine's subjective reviewing procedures but that as far as real arguments were concerned, you wiped the floor with him. Politely, of course.

In another thread, you mentioned that not everything is more audible with test tones than with music. I have seen on the ABX site that the reversal of polarity was audible with a special test tone but was not proven to be audible with music. As well, I read an article by E. Brad Myers in which the differences between a tube and solid state amplifier were more evident with pink noise than with music, and I will give the link simply because it is of intrinsic interest.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf

I like to be accurate in internet discussions with the so called subjectivist crowd, so what kinds of things are more evident with music and what kind of things are better detected using test tones?

As a second matter, you said during the debate something to the effect that on a proper, low distortion system, polarity reversals of commercial recorded materials. This was in reply to a question by John Marks. Would you please expand on this? Sometimes this comes up in internet discussions.

arnyk
arnyk's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:36am
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

>In another thread, you mentioned that not everything is more audible with test tones than with music. I have seen on the ABX site that the reversal of polarity was audible with a special test tone but was not proven to be audible with music. As well, I read an article by E. Brad Myers in which the differences between a tube and solid state amplifier were more evident with pink noise than with music, and I will give the link simply because it is of intrinsic interest.

My point is that the audiblity of technical problems with test tones is lesser in some cases and greater in other cases. IOW, there's no general rule.

A lot of the examples where its hard to stimulate problems with test tones relate to perceptual coding. For example on the PCABX site there's an example where a perceptual coder simply threw some finger snaps away. I never could figure out how to stimulate that with test tones.

In the realm of analog equipment faults, there are a number of kinds of intermodulation distortion that are obvious with music, but when you try to stimulate them with test tones, it takes so much work to figure out what it was about the music that stimulated the audible problem that it seems stupid to struggle on, given that the musical selection works so well.

>As a second matter, you said during the debate something to the effect that on a proper, low distortion system, polarity reversals of commercial recorded materials (aren't audible).

Yes. The audibility of various problems can go either way. In some cases its pretty easy to come up with a generated signal that makes the problem easier to hear, and in other cases coming up with such a signal is more work than it's worth, or it just doesn't seem to be possible.

In the modern context its so easy to capture and edit problematical musical segments. Their relevance is generally more obvious.

IME most situations where equipment is fatiquing in long-term listening, analytical dissection of the music by means of careful listening will isolate relatively short musical passages where the problem can be relaibly discerned quite quickly.

ohfourohnine
ohfourohnine's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 7:41pm
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate


Quote:
Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate?

Some good ones might encourge John and I to mix it up again.

With all due respect, "..John and me to.." is correct. That is the objective case. Couldn't resist the irony, considering your apparent commitment to objectivity. My only question is why anyone who has heard or read what came before would want more. Each of you has followers (I'm with John), and thus it will ever be.

Monty
Monty's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 16 2005 - 6:55pm
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

Thread Resuscitated

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

I am starting to recover from my DBT fatigue.

Has Mr. Krueger ever noted a difference between components in his DBT?

If so, which gear or type of gear?

Just curious, I'm still trying to find some positive controls.

commsysman
commsysman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 58 min ago
Joined: Apr 4 2006 - 11:33am
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

This is really all over the place, isn't It??
I am sure that I hear differences in systems, blind or otherwise, WHEN AND ONLY WHEN I LISTEN TO MUSICAL PASSAGES THAT I HAVE SELECTED AS FAMILIAR TO ME AND SELECTED BY ME AS REVEALING OF CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF A SOUND SYSTEM.
Asking people to do blind comparisons of equipment using either tones or material unfamiliar to them seems impossible of meaningful results, in my experience.
If I wanted to get meaningful results from a blind test, I would supply a CD prepared with certain selected passages, tell the people to listen to the material several times with particular attention to certain characteristics of certain passages on a familiar sound system, and then have them listen to this familiarized material during the test.
I think this kind of protocol would give meaningful results in a controlled test. Anything less carefully structured would not give meaningful results, in my experience.
Has anyone ever done a test with this kind of protocol? If not, why bother? That's how I see it.
Trying to compare unfamiliar equipment without standardized familiar musical reference material is a total muddle, in my opinion; how could you possibly get a meaningful result?

gkc
gkc's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Feb 24 2006 - 11:51am
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

Hi, Arny -- Whew! I just read this entire thread. You certainly love to argue! Are you sure you're not a lawyer or experimental psychologist? From my belated and objective perch, your prose carries an inescapable subtext -- you enjoy the argument more than the subject of the argument. I just hate to see a good fight end! So here's my two bits (I am using "two bits" as a collective noun, so the singular copulative is grammatical). 1) Nobody can stay blindfolded for the 6 months or so that it takes to properly evaluate a component in a system. Now, a music lover without the great blessing of eyesight MIGHT be able to convince me otherwise...except they usually don't like to argue -- the ones I have met are too busy enjoying the OTHER 4 senses. 2) I saw a little projection in your statement that nobody who can see the components being compared can be without bias. Actually, there are many of us out here in the audience who couldn't care less if a Krell sounds better than an Adcom, or vice-versa. We're called "music lovers." We just want the stuff that sounds the best, and we'll pay more for it, even though (of course!)we would PREFER to pay less...sometimes we like the cheapest stuff and sometimes we like the dearest -- most of us have a little of both in our systems. BUT, when we go to the store, I can assure you that we want the best-sounding equipment we can afford. I believe that the Stereophile staff, who reject and approve of BOTH expensive and inexpensive gear ROUTINELY, are capable of great objectivity and often show it. Or I'd quit 'em. Happy tunes, and may you win ALL your arguments. I'll be in the other room listening to Haydn (I'm currently on this Haydn kick, you see, and man-oh-man is there EVER a lot to catch up on -- 104 symphonies...wow). Clifton

commsysman
commsysman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 58 min ago
Joined: Apr 4 2006 - 11:33am
Re: Any questions or comments about the HE2005 debate

Arny???
Love to argue???

Perish the thought...how CAN you have ever have arrived at that impression?

ROFL!!!!!!

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading