Quote:
The room is gonna have a much bigger effect on how stuff sounds than a capacitor type, as long as a cap is the correct type, spec for it's ckt function. Temp stability, etc. Your concepts are bizzare indeed.

Simple for anyone to test, and find out for themselves, for rooms interactions in the sitting position. As one is sitting and listening to music, see how much sonic difference, if any, occurs while moving your head 3-5 inches in each direction. This will simulate repeated standing and sitting while performing listening tests. Surely one can sit with their head within a proximity of 1/2 to 1 foot.

Then one will know from their own experience any effects room interactions/comb filtering has.

Would you please tell us of the capacitor tests you have performed? I would like to hear about them Dup.

I took it to mean that he's looking for some experts on the topic.

Either that, or he was seeing how many people had been admitted for cochlear fatigue.

Sorry, SAS Audio, it just struck me as a funny. I meant no disagreement.

SAS, we gotta get you to the T.H.E. Show!

Quote:

Quote:
I recently contacted several hositals and was referred to a professor who teaches at a famous east coast university for information.

What kind of reference is that?

Hey, I could say I talked to GOD himself and it would have the same validity.

Come on man what's the point of being so slippery? If you've got some good info provide a proper citation, don't just make it up.

Simple Scott. Because I had a private email discussion with him, personal not public. He is under no obligation to go public, and he does not need to be deluged by people with aggressive attitudes. I will say this though. From his email.

"X, Sc.D., CCC-A
Director of Diagnostic Audiology
Children's Hospital Y
Instructor in Otology and Laryngology
Z Medical School"

Is that good enough? I think it would be profitable for you to learn the importance of private sources.

By the way, why haven't you chastised Dup for stating that the frequency response of my preamplifiers was limited to 25khz, when the spec is actually 20-25khz -0.1db? Anyone with even a basic understanding of specs/electronics would realize that the FR at -1.0db would be many many times higher. In my case above 100khz. Try to be even keeled if you can.

And why not chastise him for stating the 6n1p has superior drive capability to an E88cc when the E88cc has by far higher frequency response, same plate current, 1/3rd the plate resistance, and much much lower distortion? Again, try to be even keeled if you can.

Yes Buddha, I am always looking for articles and the highest level contacts to discuss the latest in real science. The result can be information that is not in text books.

In fact, college text books only provide enough information so one can continue one's studies outside of class. Text books are not the sum of all the knowledge by any means.

Steve

Scott, you say, "...the best that can be acheived is a faithful representation of what the engineer heard (sic) not what actually took place."

Huh?

To get "the best," in other words, I have to find the engineer and drag him around to all my auditions of new equipment?

The engineer of WHAT? Bad enough that I should have to (somehow) listen through HIS ears, but I also have to listen to HIS music??

Were you sober when you wrote this? I hope so. If not, you are going to give booze a bad name.

You listen to a representative sample of the software YOU like through YOUR ears and choose the gear that best matches your memory of what your best musical experiences sounded like when you heard them.

My task is simple. The memory of the live event. Others have shifting criteria, because they are seeking the reproduction/recreation of different types of electronic experiences.

The key words here are "reproduction" and "memory of the best experiences." "Experience" is personal. If you are looking for somebody else's experience to govern the choices presented to your ear/brain complex, just send him/her a check. Why bother to listen to anything yourself?

Just hire an engineer and send him a check.

Scott, just enjoy the music until you don't enjoy it any more. Then, go out and listen to something that does the job better, through your personal flappers and neural processors. There is NO universal arbiter of these things. Least of all, some engineer. Sheesh. They, as a group, have screwed up more music than History can recall. And that's a capital "H." And you want us to spend money on what THEY hear???

Did you really say that? Did you really mean that? Trust an engineer? I have a better idea. Take your life's savings out of the bank and send it to a broker you randomly select from Google. Tell him/her you want to triple your money by December. And just let it happen.

Scott, what in hell are you smokin'???

Quote:

I'll buy that if you buy this:

-----Original Message-----
From: GOD [mailto:God@heaven.org]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 6:18 PM
To: [yours truly]
Subject: re: Should I trust what sas is saying

Scott,

People like that should be taken with a salt shaker.

All my best,

God

What do you think?

Hasn't he published anything? You know what they say about professors that don't publish... they perish.

So you can just bust into anyone's life because they are published? With that logic, you are entitled to invade any movie starts life without their permission. How about providing your email address to all of us?

Quote:
It's difficult to imagine a professor who is not profusely pedantic in prose.

Again, that gives you the right to bust into his life, because he is published? Sorry kid, poor excuse.

Quote:
By the way, why haven't you chastised Dup

Quote:
DUP is harmless. As far as I can tell he does not stand to profit(at the expense of others) from what he says.

Oh really? So you discredit a professor and especially me, but dup's misinformational comments are harmless.
And since when is misinformation harmless?

Quote:
jus try'n ta keep thins honest tahts all...

Really? Standing up for those who post misinformation seems kinda opposite from your above statement to keep things honest.

So guinea pig and chinchilla studies are your evidence? OK, have it your way. And what do those articles actually state and exactly how does this relate to the human experience? "Minimal" means what in human terms?

Mis information, not from me, never. And as stated by others, I have nothing to gain or sell. So if you say only listening comparisons whould be limited to a few minutes, then all the reviewers articles in this magazine and otehrs are VOID. And how do we know you didn't listen longer than you should have, and gave false information based on a tired COCHlea.....? Perhaps your entire design, is based on misinformation, and fatique. So how long does it take you to listen to an entire CD? Having to rest your COCHlea so often, must be frustrating, can never finish to completion, listening to the end I mean. Me thicks you are incorrect sir, in your wisdom of COCHlea fatique when doing compairsons. How do any records or CD's ever get finished, those guys listen and listen, tweak this sound move this.....does fatiqued COCHlea come from a genitc thing, cus' I don't suffer from any such thing, sometimes I'm just plain TIRED, but my COCHlea still wants to keep going. I think you are making up excuses, and more bizzare audiophile nonsense to just make things seem more complicated than they really are. So how long do you take to come to the conclusion your AC wires on your preamp sounds better than a regualr 18ga $3 cord from Parts Express? As you proclaim you are using some magic line cords....once anyone goes that way, everything else is questionalbe....since ther is no engineering logic to freezing a piece of wire, and telling people it sounds better, BS.

A computer model of the auditory-nerve response to forward-masking stimuli.

Meddis R, O'Mard LP.
Centre for the Neural Basis of Hearing at Essex, Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester C04 3SQ, United Kingdom. rmeddis@essex.ac.uk

A computer model of the auditory periphery is used to study the involvement of auditory-nerve (AN) adaptation in forward-masking effects. An existing model is shown to simulate published AN recovery functions both qualitatively and quantitatively after appropriate parameter adjustments. It also simulates published data showing only small threshold shifts when a psychophysical forward-masking paradigm is applied to AN responses. The model is extended to simulate a simple but physiologically plausible mechanism for making threshold decisions based on coincidental firing of a number of AN fibers. When this is used, much larger threshold shifts are observed of a size consistent with published psychophysical observations. The problem of how stimulus-driven firing can be distinguished from spontaneous activity near threshold is also addressed by the same decision mechanism. Overall, the modeling results suggest that poststimulatory reductions in AN activity can make a substantial contribution to the raised thresholds observed in many psychophysical studies of forward masking.

J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Jun;117(6):3787-98

_________________

I like this next one. It points to how, in a way, we are all 'digital' in how we preceive, but there are so many synapses firing all at once, that it's also kind of analog!

The combined effects of forward masking by noise and high click rate on monaural and binaural human auditory nerve and brainstem potentials.Pratt H, Polyakov A, Bleich N, Mittelman N.
Evoked Potentials Laboratory, Behavioral Biology, Gutwirth Bldg., Technion--Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel. hillel@tx.technion.ac.il

OBJECTIVE: To study effects of forward masking and rapid stimulation on human monaurally- and binaurally-evoked brainstem potentials and suggest their relation to synaptic fatigue and recovery and to neuronal action potential refractoriness. METHODS: Auditory brainstem evoked potentials (ABEPs) were recorded from 12 normally- and symmetrically hearing adults, in response to each click (50 dB nHL, condensation and rarefaction) in a train of nine, with an inter-click interval of 11 ms, that followed a white noise burst of 100 ms duration (50 dB nHL). Sequences of white noise and click train were repeated at a rate of 2.89 s(-1). The interval between noise and first click in the train was 2, 11, 22, 44, 66 or 88 ms in different runs. ABEPs were averaged (8000 repetitions) using a dwell time of 25 micros/address/channel. The binaural interaction components (BICs) of ABEPs were derived and the single, centrally located equivalent dipoles of ABEP waves I and V and of the BIC major wave were estimated. RESULTS: The latencies of dipoles I and V of ABEP, their inter-dipole interval and the dipole magnitude of component V were significantly affected by the interval between noise and clicks and by the serial position of the click in the train. The latency and dipole magnitude of the major BIC component were significantly affected by the interval between noise and clicks. Interval from noise and the click's serial position in the train interacted to affect dipole V latency, dipole V magnitude, BIC latencies and the V-I inter-dipole latency difference. Most of the effects were fully apparent by the first few clicks in the train, and the trend (increase or decrease) was affected by the interval between noise and clicks. CONCLUSIONS: The changes in latency and magnitude of ABEP and BIC components with advancing position in the click train and the interactions of click position in the train with the intervals from noise indicate an interaction of fatigue and recovery, compatible with synaptic depletion and replenishing, respectively. With the 2 ms interval between noise and the first click in the train, neuronal action potential refractoriness may also be involved.

___________________________

I like this next one 'cause it shows Xanax can affect hearing and...did you know...that our bodies have receptors for endogenous molecules that do the same sort of thing Xanax does...and that...perhaps...is one reason we tend to hear things the way we do...and that...perhaps...can relate very closely to how some of those "BS" products affect what we perceive...even though they aren't in the actual signal path - we may anticipate something, then release the proper substances in order to make ourselves hear it! I call this the Quantum QX4 phenomenon.

Separate and combined effects of a benzodiazepine (alprazolam) and noise on auditory brainstem responses in man.Parrot J, Petiot JC, Morizot S, Petiot MT, Smolik HJ.
Department of Psychophysiology, University of Burgundy, France.

Auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) were recorded in 60 male or female, anxious or anxiety-free university students, before and after separated or simultaneous intake of alprazolam and exposure to noise. A significant increase of the latencies of the ABRs was found when subjects took alprazolam. This effect is consistent with the presence of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), one of the neurotransmitters at terminals of cochlear efferent fibres A significant increase of the latencies was observed after noise alone. In subjects taking alprazolam when they are exposed to noise, the effect of noise on the ABR latencies is reduced, but not abolished. The effects of alprazolam on the ABR are consistent with the presence of GABA in the medulla and pons. Significant effects of noise upon III-V and I-V intervals suggest that auditory 'fatigue' may involve a retrocochlear component. Differences due to sex appear to be abolished by anxiety.

Audiology. 1999 Nov-Dec;38(6):312-20

Talk about implications for blind listening tests!

_______________________

This next one somewhat disagrees with SAS. No flame intended, just looking for references on the topic.

Suppression of otoacoustic emission is unchanged after several minutes of contralateral acoustic stimulation.Giraud AL, Collet L, Ch

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Hasn't he published anything? You know what they say about professors that don't publish... they perish.

So you can just bust into anyone's life because they are published?

Who said anything about "bust"ing into someones life?

If you have credible evidence provide a citation.

Quote:
So you discredit a professor and especially me

No professor has been established as existing so how can he discredited?
You are not being discredited. Your information is in question. Its credibility has yet to be established.

Quote:
So guinea pig and chinchilla studies are your evidence?

Not my evidence. Just an illustration of the type of information that is easily Googled. Come on, I'm making it easy for you. How hard can it be to point to something that supports your claim?

Quote:
OK, have it your way. And what do those articles actually state and exactly how does this relate to the human experience? "Minimal" means what in human terms?

Again, how hard can it be for you to provide citations for even the most basic info?

The burden of proof is on you. You make the claims, prove them.

Why all the obfuscation and subterfuge? Transparency my man, that is the quest.

You are confusing argumentum ad verecundiam for argumentum ad hominem. Lets try to keep it straight.

Maybe we both do not have time, but would it not have been more pleasant to seach and provide links like Buddha has just done above (thanks for your efforts Buddha) and contributed positively to the discussion? Everyone benefits that way.

Take care.

Yes, Buddha, you have proven SSS audio is making claims, that are as senseless as other magic makers, cool. He uses magic AC wires, that is a clue to the BS sensor is turned on. Also using special techniques for listening, another ALERT to the BS alarms. Since I can't listen with special methods, I can only use equipment that works on normal listening methods. If it takes a special listening method, what godd is teh equipment, if only the maker knows how to listen in that "special" way. BS ALERT. Warning Will Robinson WARNING. Just listen and keep all the special references out of it, then ya sound a bit more legit. The slightest mention of magic wires, ...all done, BS alert.

Post deleted by Stephen Mejias

Quote:
Why no picutres of your indards, most mfgs show how they put stuff together when claiming how good it is. Show me your insides. Or again BS alert. todays world, I think it is always a good idea to inspect the internals of a component before purchasing.

http://www.sasaudiolabs.com/sasaudio.htm

http://snipurl.com/4hw1l

Dup, I am sure you will find some things you do not agree with.

The rest of your posts are not worth commenting on, except your lack of understanding about voltage regulators. Of course you posted that the frequency response of 20-25khz
-0.1db meant the fr only extended to 25khz. (actually -1db above 100khz.)

Audio Research and many other companies use tube voltage regulation in class A high end designs. Of course the distortion is very low at .015% typical, (.05% IMD) as I pointed out earlier with the 11A preamplifier (shown above). This means the regulator is not a cause of high distortion as you claim. JJ has produced a series of small tubes with very low distortion.

I see http://snipurl.com/4hw1l comes up my page. What is this about?

SAS, DUP functions as a 'griefer.' No need to satisfy his demands, he will never stop and say, "Thanks." He will just find some other quibble to be argumentative about.

He is remarkably old for the type of posting persona he maintains. Usually 'griefers' are teens.

Best to use the ignore button and try to post topics in their related forums rather than General Rants and Raves.

Hmmm . . .

I don't know.

Looks too tidy to me, can't possibly sound good.

Quote:
SAS, DUP functions as a 'griefer.' No need to satisfy his demands, he will never stop and say, "Thanks." He will just find some other quibble to be argumentative about.

He is remarkably old for the type of posting persona he maintains. Usually 'griefers' are teens.

Best to use the ignore button and try to post topics in their related forums rather than General Rants and Raves.

Thanks Buddha and Elk. I was hoping others would see that as well. Seems he attacks any and all companies with equal vigor.

Take care and thanks again.
Steve

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Why no picutres of your indards, most mfgs show how they put stuff together when claiming how good it is. Show me your insides. Or again BS alert. todays world, I think it is always a good idea to inspect the internals of a component before purchasing.

http://www.sasaudiolabs.com/sasaudio.htm

http://snipurl.com/4hw1l

Time to comment Dup. I am sure you will find some things you do not agree with.

The rest of your posts are not worth commenting on, except that you understand nothing about voltage regulators. Of course you knew nothing about reading the frequency response spec either, claiming 20-25khz -0.1db meant the fr only extended to 25khz.

Audio Research and many other companies use tube voltage regulation in class A high end designs. Of course the distortion is very low (.015% typical, .05% IMD) as I pointed out earlier with the 11A preamplifier (shown above). JJ has produced a series of small tubes with very low distortion.

I see http://snipurl.com/4hw1l comes up my page. What is this about?

Ok, now that's what I'm talking about. Better than a thousand words.

Nicely done.

Thank you very much Scott. I appreciate that.

Take care.
Steve

I could give you my opinion, but i won't. cool, thanks.

Quote:
I could give you my opinion, but i won't.

Translation:

Even DUP cannot come up with something to criticize.

Impressive work, Steve.

The notion that more accurate systems are inherently more resolving is provably false. Many forms of distortion can increase resolution rather than decrease it. The canonical example here is that gross frequency response deviations can throw ATH assumptions off in lossy encoders. In a very real sense, you might be better off detecting artifacts in lossy encoders with a cheap pair of headphones rather than a hifi (all other things like THD and noise floors being held about equal).

I'm also reminded of that old c't blind test of MP3 encoding, tested with a full Sennheiser Orpheus stack (>$10k as I recall). IIRC, the only guy who could reliably pass the 256k CBR test had total hearing loss after 8k. Same principle. So, heh, if you think all MP3s sound terrible.... you might just be deaf.

There's also the example of even-order harmonics causing an increase in sensitivity to polarity inversion. Again, there's very solid evidence here that if you can actually hear this, it's your system lying to you, and not because you can actually hear the effect.

So let's stop the tripe about highly resolving systems being inherently a good thing, OK? Resolution has only an indirect relationship to accuracy/low distortion.

Quote:
The notion that more accurate systems are inherently more resolving is provably false. Many forms of distortion can increase resolution rather than decrease it. The canonical example here is that gross frequency response deviations can throw ATH assumptions off in lossy encoders. In a very real sense, you might be better off detecting artifacts in lossy encoders with a cheap pair of headphones rather than a hifi (all other things like THD and noise floors being held about equal).

I'm also reminded of that old c't blind test of MP3 encoding, tested with a full Sennheiser Orpheus stack (>$10k as I recall). IIRC, the only guy who could reliably pass the 256k CBR test had total hearing loss after 8k. Same principle. So, heh, if you think all MP3s sound terrible.... you might just be deaf.

There's also the example of even-order harmonics causing an increase in sensitivity to polarity inversion. Again, there's very solid evidence here that if you can actually hear this, it's your system lying to you, and not because you can actually hear the effect.

So let's stop the tripe about highly resolving systems being inherently a good thing, OK? Resolution has only an indirect relationship to accuracy/low distortion.

So, how did you choose your system?

If we use aberrant exemplars of system resolution not being the final word, then how should the average person approach this notion?

For the average audiophile, system resolution is not something to strive for?

Not flaming, just asking how you'd prioritize.

For myself, I try to find systems that I find 'resolving' based on my own ear; so, there is room for person to person variation. But, proclaiming that some guy who can't hear above 8K being able to discern certain attributes is proof that resolution isn't a goal to aspire to is a bit specious.

For the average audiophile, superior resultion tends to be a positive attribute.

I myself purchase mostly on principle and specs rather than sound, but I don't claim to speak for anybody else there. Witness my continuing quixotic quest to get good sound out of digital-only, non-RIAA, balanced-cabling turntable recordings, for instance. (I'm most of the way there!) That said, if I wasn't involved in such strange schemes and actually broke down and built a home theater system, I'd probably follow Ethan's advice to a T.

Principles and extrinsics matter, potentially more than specs; intrinsics do not matter as much. Whether an amp is solid state or not does not matter as much as power output + THD, but that is not as important as, say, if it has enough channels and onboard DSP to do bi-amping, or to do high-channel-count surround that works. If I was on a desert island with an unlimited supply of ambisonic recordings and an infinite number of speakers, I couldn't care less about whether or not the amp was tubed.

It's hard to generalize, imho. Specifically in the case of being "resolving", having good spatial resolution (soundstaging) is universally important and is hard to fake, as is maximizing the dynamic range of the listening environment by removing noise sources (and increasing peak power output). Those are the fundamentals, they are hard to get really good, and they will aid in the perception of more details in the music.

And yet, all the time I've experienced listening to an album over and over at home, and then listening in the car, and hearing brand new things (while not hearing lots of other things). The car certainly isn't any better of a listening environment, but it did allow for certain details to become more prominent.

I guess what I'm saying is that once you abandon the specs and the fundamentals and go for resolution or "what sounds best", everything gets subjective, because no matter what system you have, there's going to be another system out there that will let you hear something new and different out of the same music you have. You can either learn to accept that you won't ever hear everything out of your music, or you follow that particular rabbit hole down to Wonderland.

Also, I think that fewer knowledgeable people actually buy based on accuracy than might first appear; they buy based on what sounds good, or more fundamentally, what makes them feel happy. Wasn't it only recently that hyperdetailed systems were frowned upon?

Quote:
Whether an amp is solid state or not does not matter as much as power output + THD ... I couldn't care less about whether or not the amp was tubed.

Yes, with one caveat. The main reason I'd never buy anything with tubes is because tubes change sound over time and eventually break, need the bias adjusted for best performance, waste electricity and generate a lot of heat, and can become microphonic. Other than higher distortion and poorer damping factor, they're just as good as solid state.

--Ethan

Quote:

Quote:
Whether an amp is solid state or not does not matter as much as power output + THD ... I couldn't care less about whether or not the amp was tubed.

Yes, with one caveat. The main reason I'd never buy anything with tubes is because tubes change sound over time and eventually break, need the bias adjusted for best performance, waste electricity and generate a lot of heat, and can become microphonic. Other than higher distortion and poorer damping factor, they're just as good as solid state.

--Ethan

True, although to some people, those are all advantages.

Goddamn hipsters.

Have you seen this - interesting to see what happens when Tiefenbrun's claims are put to the test:
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm

Pete B.

We may have a problem by not defining "resolution".

By boosting the mid-highs one can hear more artifacts. This is a form of higher resolution.

In the alternative, resolution can mean the ability to reproduce all frequencies equally well without distortion. To me this is an ideal high-resolution system, even if it will not allow me to hear artifacts as well.

Quote:
Have you seen this - interesting to see what happens when Tiefenbrun's claims are put to the test...

It's been a while since I have seen this.

I always have to respect the person who will subject himself to such testing and appreciate the author's tone as well.

Most interesting to me is the strong desire to perceive differences and to discern patterns. Independently of the reproduced sound, the author accurately cued in on a change in background hiss between the options. This is very human and what many of us would see to do - if only unintentionally.

Quote:
Have you seen this - interesting to see what happens when Tiefenbrun's claims are put to the test

Awesome, very much like the BAS hi-res audio debunking. Duly bookmarked. Thanks Pete.

--Ethan

We gotta find a reference for just how large an artifact has to be before DBT can identify it.

Are there DBT proving Ethan's contention about comb filtering?

I have an untreated room at home, and no matter where I go in the room, the sound seems consistently to sound like the artist I am listening to.

Maybe comb filtering is a hoax.

Ethan posts "measurements," but just this week he pointed out that many things that can be measured are not audible. I wonder of comb filtering is like that - measurable, but not detectable in instantaneous DBT?

Ethan, you got any proof?

Quote:
We gotta find a reference for just how large an artifact has to be before DBT can identify it.

Hi Buddha,

Yes, and I would like to see more specific data, such as the test results broken down at each AB, not just the "final tally".

One can check for the extent of room interactions by simply moving one's head a few inches back and forth in all directions.

Quote:

Quote:
We gotta find a reference for just how large an artifact has to be before DBT can identify it.

Hi Buddha,

Yes, and I would like to see more specific data, such as the test results broken down at each AB.

One can check for the extent of room effects by simply moving one's head back and forth in all directions.

I'm sorry, SAS, but moving one's head around and noticing a 'difference' has not been validated by DBT.

I think if Ethan is going to keep a file regarding failed DBT trials, he needs to pop up a few that validate his own claims.

I've seen those 'voodoo' sites that Ethan disdains, with their personal anecdotes substituting for data, and testimonials from 'satisfied' 'customers,' and Ethan's site is full of the same pseudo-validations.

Ethan offers no instantaneous DBT data to verify his claims, and then he tells on the one that there are measurements that show differences between pieces of gear that we can't hear, but then tells us he uses measurements to validate the sonic impact of his products.

I'm just looking for some consistency.

Quote:
We gotta find a reference for just how large an artifact has to be before DBT can identify it.

Audibility depends on magnitude and masking. An artifact 20 dB down may be inaudible if it has similar spectral content to the music, where another artifact might be audible even at -60 if it contains frequencies far removed from those present in the music. Been there done that earlier this year:

Artifact Audibility Report

Quote:
Are there DBT proving Ethan's contention about comb filtering?

DBT isn't needed for this because comb filtering is trivial to measure. DBT is needed only to settle arguments over things that can't be measured, and people don't all agree they hear. Such as plugging your gear into a power conditioner.

Quote:
I have an untreated room at home, and no matter where I go in the room, the sound seems consistently to sound like the artist I am listening to.

Yes, but that's yet more intentional silliness from you because that misses the point and you know it. By your logic all power amps sound the same, and all CD players and speaker wires, because no matter which amp and wires you use you can still identify the artist. C'mon pal, stay on topic okay?

Quote:
Ethan posts "measurements," but just this week he pointed out that many things that can be measured are not audible. I wonder of comb filtering is like that - measurable, but not detectable in instantaneous DBT?

Of course I have proof. Stand somewhere in an untreated room and listen carefully to the music. Now go anywhere else, let's say at least 10 feet away to make the change very obvious, and listen again. Do you hear the difference? I rest my case.

--Ethan

Quote:
I've seen those 'voodoo' sites that Ethan disdains, with their personal anecdotes substituting for data, and testimonials from 'satisfied' 'customers,' and Ethan's site is full of the same pseudo-validations.

Yes, because anecdotal praise works as a selling tool. Hey, if Bob Katz and Nile Rodgers bought his products and said those nice things, that's proof enough. But the defining difference between my company's site and the voodoo sites is my site also contains hard data. And unlike power conditioners, nobody, and I mean nobody fails to hear the change after adding bass traps and other treatment to their room.

--Ethan

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
We gotta find a reference for just how large an artifact has to be before DBT can identify it.

Hi Buddha,

Yes, and I would like to see more specific data, such as the test results broken down at each AB.

One can check for the extent of room effects by simply moving one's head back and forth in all directions.

I'm sorry, SAS, but moving one's head around and noticing a 'difference' has not been validated by DBT.

I think if Ethan is going to keep a file regarding failed DBT trials, he needs to pop up a few that validate his own claims.

I've seen those 'voodoo' sites that Ethan disdains, with their personal anecdotes substituting for data, and testimonials from 'satisfied' 'customers,' and Ethan's site is full of the same pseudo-validations.

Ethan offers no instantaneous DBT data to verify his claims, and then he tells on the one that there are measurements that show differences between pieces of gear that we can't hear, but then tells us he uses measurements to validate the sonic impact of his products.

I'm just looking for some consistency.

What I meant was that if one moves their head around a few inches in different directions, one should clearly hear a difference in sound if comb filtering is all it is cracked up to be.

I don't think anyone actually does hear any difference though. Although one cannot preach this test as "scientific", each individual can still perform this simple experiment in their own venue to see for themselves how influential or not influential comb filtering actually is.

If comb filtering were that infuential, simply moving one's hear 1/2" or less would produce profound sonic effects.

Take care.

Quote:
Of course I have proof. Stand somewhere in an untreated room and listen carefully to the music. Now go anywhere else, let's say at least 10 feet away to make the change very obvious, and listen again. Do you hear the difference? I rest my case.

Well, that is certainly not even sinfgle blind validated.

I hear people talk about cables and they say, "Just plug them in and listen," but when someone reports hearing the difference, Ethan will not allow that sort of report. Ethan does not consider an open litening report to stand as valid, yet he just told me to do just that with regard to his own claims about comb filtering!

Ethan, mon ami.

Get you some DBT data, or climb off the null result DBT bandwagon.

Everything you say about your product or about comb filtering could just as easily have been said by Nordost and their products, and how would you react to that?

Ethan, you right there in black and white told us to "just listen!" to prove your point.

I know a few Quantum QX4 owners who would tell you the same thing.

Oh, the tangled web we weave when we won't even DBT our own products.

(You know I'm just goofing off, Ethan, but I would like to discuss how we make the claims we do while dismissing our own lack of rigor when it is convenient.)

Quote:
Everything you say about your product or about comb filtering could just as easily have been said by Nordost and their products, and how would you react to that?

If they had data to back it up that would go a long way toward convincing me. I already explained that this is the defining difference between my company and companies that sell voodoo. Also, and again, nobody who treats their room fails to hear a difference. Versus Jason's comment elsewhere that he heard no difference with the RGPC product. Lots of people do not hear a change with speaker wires, or power products, or even one competent amplifier versus another. But everyone hears a change with good room treatment. I qualify this with "good" because there's voodoo snake oil with room treatment too. As I believe I already said, DBT is needed only when there's no data to back up the claim, and there's no universal agreement as to whether the sound changed.

Quote:
(You know I'm just goofing off, Ethan, but I would like to discuss how we make the claims we do while dismissing our own lack of rigor when it is convenient.)

Yes, my brotha from anotha mutha. But now that I have explained for at least the second time that the defining difference is hard data, hopefully you'll stop ignoring that key point.

BTW, the same goes for "You can't measure a symphony" and other diversionary tactics.

--Ethan

I will quit goofing on Ethan for a moment, and in case there are some people who may not be all that familiar with him, Ethan once did one of the coolest things I have ever seen at a Hi Fi show, ever.

At the Stereophile Show in, I think, 2006, Rives Audio set up two identical adjoining demo rooms, and one room was left 'bare' and the other was treated with Ethan's products. Show goers could 'almost' instantaneously compare treated and untreated rooms.

Closest I've ever been to a true A/B of room treatments.

Longstanding kudos to Ethan for that.

Was everyone led from room to room with blinfolds on?

Have you seen or ever been in a room with a dozen or more of Ethans humungous traps in it? Talk about expectation bias!

RG

Some information on psychoacoustics would help:
http://www.amazon.com/Spatial-Hearing-Revised-Psychophysics-Localization/dp/0262024136

Masking, averaging, etc.
The brain processing after the simple physical reception of sound is highly complex to say the least.

We hear more like a spectrum analyzer and this explains why we do not hear comb filtering as drastically as it looks with a mic. On the other hand, most certainly do hear bass cavity resonances.

I generally agree with Linkwitz, but not with everything here, still an interesting talk:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=VC-sxvNzC8I

BTW - I do not agree with the premis of this thread: "Double blind test are inherently flawed."

Perhaps yes, with: "Double blind tests done carelessly/incompetently are inherently flawed" LOL!