|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
142.134.97.112
In Reply to: RE: +1 posted by E-Stat on February 21, 2015 at 06:56:40
You and Todd, Fred Kaplan, and so on can try to psychoanalyze those who are sceptical of a lot of audiophile claims all you want. But that's just a red herring. What you fail to do is show that you can hear the differences between accurate amplifiers operated within their design limits, cables, interconnects, good DACs, capacitors, and so on.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Follow Ups:
"What you fail to do is show that you can hear the differences between accurate amplifiers operated within their design limits, cables, interconnects, good DACs, capacitors, and so on."Whether this is actually true or not isn't even the point.... The *presumption* of this has led to the systematic discounting of feedback from end users by designers, which IMO has provided an excuse to produce products of compromised quality.
If someone can "prove" I cannot tell the difference between a kazoo and pipe organ, I don't really care.... If I have to fault audiophiles in this regard, they take this as "embarrassment".... But they really shouldn't. Good designers should listen to all feedback, even if half of it seems "tin-foil-hat-ish"...... They might discover some of the feedback was actually valid.
Edits: 02/21/15
"What you fail to do is show that you can hear the differences between accurate amplifiers operated within their design limits, cables, interconnects, good DACs, capacitors, and so on."
If true, then that is a glaring failure and calls into question the integrity of those who continue to make the knowledge claim sans validation. As any scientist or philosopher will tell you, the burden of proof is on he who makes the knowledge claim. A stubborn failure to validate one's own claim is indicative of one who is either: delusional, dishonest or infantile. And unfortunately this venue suffers from a liberal sprinkling of all three.
"If true, then that is a glaring failure and calls into question the integrity of those who continue to make the knowledge claim sans validation. As any scientist or philosopher will tell you, the burden of proof is on he who makes the knowledge claim. A stubborn failure to validate one's own claim is indicative of one who is either: delusional, dishonest or infantile. And unfortunately this venue suffers from a liberal sprinkling of all three."
If you're citing the designers, I agree.... If you're citing the end users, I disagree.... The end users are just seeking product satisfaction, not "knowledge".
"If you're citing the designers, I agree.... If you're citing the end users, I disagree.... The end users are just seeking product satisfaction, not "knowledge"."
Hi Todd:
Thanks for your thoughtful replies, here and elsewhere. I have in mind reviewers who throw 600 words at the "audible differences" between comparably priced SS power amps that deliver about the same wattage. Is there **any** objective proof that reviewers are capable of discerning what they insist are noticeable differences or are audiophiles being fed nothing more than anecdotal stories?
Last year, a well-known Pinot Noir producer admitted to me that, over the years, when the occasions have arisen, his ability to pick out his own wine (blind) from a small group (4-5) of other Pinots was pretty poor. I suspect amplifier manufacturers would have the same problem, as well as reviewers who have lived with the same amp for years.
But don't hold your breath waiting for such refreshing candor from the audiophile community.
...is there objective proof for anything that provides you more emotional and sensual satisfaction?Restaurant/food review
High performance automobile review
Wine review
High end hotel review
Audio equipment review using music reproductionThe point of each of these, and many others, is for the reviewer to describe their experience so you can try it yourself if it sounds appealing.
If you are unable to distinguish or appreciate the differences between one and another, then no amount of objective information will matter.
Edits: 02/22/15
When you talk about end users seeking "product satisfaction," that changes the standard to what equipment they prefer. I advise people to get equipment they prefer, so I think I pretty well agree with you there.
Designers no doubt try to design equipment they like. Reviewers, on the other hand, try to rate equipment in a way which will be relevant to other people. Or, at least, readers are likely to expect that they do so. This can work reasonably well with speakers because we know speakers sound different and that most people with normal hearing tend to prefer the same sorts of characteristics in speakers, though I must say that there are some reviewers whose taste in speakers is so far from my own that I give their opinions little weight.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Yhy you do have way with words, my my ... roof!
...who cares about proving differences it they bring you more long term musical enjoyment.Can you prove one restaurant's main course tastes better than another's?
You don't trust your own senses?
Guess you eat a lot of cheap fast food.
Moronic arguement.
Edits: 02/21/15
...since objectivists like to demand listening tests which block another sense which can interfere, they want the tests done blind.
The same can be done with food testing!
Taste two dishes with your nose plugged and see whether you can taste a difference or which one tastes better.
Pretty objective and just as scientific.
I believe taste and smell are very closely allied.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
...as are sight and listening.Removing sight from listening tests tends to make small differences disappear.
Just like removing smell from a taste test.
One is just as scientific as the other.
Edits: 02/21/15
There is very little analogy between food/wine tasting and listening to audio equipment. Unless you are just saying, oh well, if a wine is so good, we ought to be able to tell it is good without someone else telling us 'the wine you are about to taste is really good'. In other words, deaf-taste testing, or blind-taste testing where we don't know that the wine won an award, or whatever. That's obvious.
In food tasting/eating, you're not generally asked to determine the difference between what's 'real' beef and some substitute. I suggest you and I could taste the difference immediately.
Whereas, when you are listening to an audio system, you know you're not listening to live music. The question is, can you, and do you want to, suspend disbelief in order to listen to the music, and how much effort does it take to do that?
I've never understood people who could sit still for 2 hours and listen to a piece of music on a stereo, or for that matter, in a concert hall.
One always wants either 1) more variety 2) to get up and dance 3) play or sing along 4) or do somthing else while the music plays, or 5) get up and move the speakers an inch left or right
Chances are, like watching TV, the critical faculties turn off anyway after a maximum of 20 minutes, and it does take mental energy to suspend disbelief even that long.
Now, if closing your eyes really does affect what the equipment sounds like, (I still don't believe that but I grant it for the sake of argument) then you also agree that the eye must be 'pleased' along with the ears. Which favors things that we like to look at, but which may have nothing to do with actual performance. It is, however, possible that if we believe that big drivers are necessary for better sound, we will tend to like looking at those big drivers/speakers. Or if we 'believe' that tubed equipment sounds better, than we will prefer to listen to tubed equipment.
I find, in general, what I see before me doesn't really affect what I hear, and I've heard enough systems. Of course, if speakers are not symmetrically placed, you won't hear the central image, etc., but you do not hear the central image because your eyes tell you you're sitting in the middle of 2 speakers!!
Of course, seeing is just another way of perceiving, so if I am blinded, my perceptual ability (and ability to be fooled) may be compromised. In such a situation I may believe what someone is saying, over my own acoustical perception.
I still believe quite firmly that if there is a real and important difference between two components under test, one should be able to identify the difference in a 'blind' (or closed eyes) test, otherwise the difference is simply not subjectively important. Now whether we can do that in a quick A/B without any practice on that system, that is also highly dubious.
OTOH, some argue that our ability to make up/compensate for changes with our ear/brain far outweighs our ability to identify what the differences are, and whether they are necessarily 'better' or 'worse' especially since 'better' in one sonic parameter usually means compromises in another.
The reason 'subjective reviewing' has taken off in the US is 1) audiophiles are inherently individualistic and 2) the magazines haven't had the resources to do really intensive, group testing under controlled conditions, which actually can and does tell you more about a component than oodles of verbiage, turd polishing, glossy pictures, and a few measurement graphs for the pseudo-scientists among us.
...my comparison was facetious.
Second, I posted this above:
"...is there objective proof for anything that provides you more emotional and sensual satisfaction?
Restaurant/food review
High performance automobile review
Wine review
High end hotel review
Audio equipment review using music reproduction
The point of each of these, and many others, is for the reviewer to describe their experience so you can try it yourself if it sounds appealing.
If you are unable to distinguish or appreciate the differences between one and another, then no amount of objective information will matter."
And finally:
> The reason 'subjective reviewing' has taken off in the US is 1) audiophiles are inherently individualistic and 2) the magazines haven't had the resources to do really intensive, group testing under controlled conditions, which actually can and does tell you more about a component than oodles of verbiage, turd polishing, glossy pictures, and a few measurement graphs for the pseudo-scientists among us.>
I disagree. This is a hobby. Like any hobby, people like to read about and discuss the opinions of "experts" to see how their experience compares or for guidance in making a short list of equipment to audition for themselves.
Subjective reviewing took off in the early 1970s when J. Gordon Holt decided he wanted to write about how the equipment sounded rather than how it measured. Today Stereophile does both.
I have seen no real evidence that group testing under controlled conditions (not easy to do correctly) is any better at identifying small audible differences than experienced observational listening.
But the important part of audio reviewing is describing the audible differences in detail - in terms of music reproduction - which no measurement or objective test can do.
That's not what's meant by blind.
Blind just means the listener doesn't know which he's listening to.
He gets to keep his eyes open.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Not in the same way.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Then combine all of them ....... :)
And by "wow," I don't mean anything good.
"You could tell what a Baggins would say on any subject without the bother of asking him." - J.R.R. Tolkien
...which could be said of certain denizens on this website as well.
What you fail to do is show that you can hear the differences between accurate amplifiers operated within their design limits, cables, interconnects, good DACs, capacitors, and so on.
Only the insecure and deaf require validation.
And wait for "good evidence to come in" . :)
You have given an extremely ambiguous reply:
"Only the insecure and deaf require validation."
What is the validation you are talking about? You are quite vague about that.
When people claim they can hear differences between accurate electronics, such as two accurate amplifiers operated within their design limits, I want to see if there is a reason to believe them.
A lot of people seem to feel threatened when asked if they have performed a controlled blind test to show that they actually can detect the differences in sound they claim to be able to detect. Actually, if they were secure, they would simply reply that they have, or have not. If someone just says that they prefer this or that piece of equipment over some others, based on sighted auditioning, there would be no problem.
Of course, subjective reviewers don't like that since their success depends on people believing them, and if they are simply providing their own preference, there is no reason other people should believe they would have the same preferences, unless the differences are above known audio thresholds. A lot of people here don't seem to like it, either. They may conceive themselves as offering good advice, and seem to feel threatened when their advice is not accepted.
But of course, that provides no justification for supposing that others will prefer the same equipment, unless there is research (such as has been done with speakers) that most people tend to like the same sorts of sonic characteristics of speakers under blind conditions. Even with speakers, I would still prefer to see a review with a good set of performance measurements for speakers such as Soundstage does at the NRC, or Stereophile does, or even Audioholics or Sound & Vision, whose speaker measurements are much less complete in significant respects. AIG is a special case because their speaker measurements get significantly different results from others, but they're still a lot better than nothing.
Often enough, measurements will indicate that some amplifiers are likely to sound different. Stereophile and Soundstage publish the frequency response of amplifiers into a simulated speaker load with an impedance which various widely with frequency. These curves shows that with many speakers amplifiers which have high output impedances (i.e., many tube amps) are likely to sound different than amplifiers with low output impedances.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
What is the validation you are talking about? You are quite vague about that.
Someone else telling you what you hear. :)
When people claim they can hear differences between accurate electronics, such as two accurate amplifiers operated within their design limits, I want to see if there is a reason to believe them.
There's a simple answer. Exposure to better. At least for those who are familiar to the sound of live unamplified music.
I would still prefer to see a review with a good set of performance measurements for speakers such as Soundstage does at the NRC, or Stereophile does, or even Audioholics or Sound & Vision, whose speaker measurements are much less complete in significant respects.
Such is quite useful for very basic frequency linearity purposes. Coincidentally, I performed a frequency analysis of my HT in the bottom octaves, and made some adjustments to the processor configuration and level controls of my subs to produce the most linear response in the bottom three octaves.
These curves shows that with many speakers amplifiers which have high output impedances (i.e., many tube amps) are likely to sound different than amplifiers with low output impedances.
The qualitative results are far different from basic impedance curve results. Far different. :)
Well, at least you agree that with many speakers, amplifiers with a high output impedance will likely sound different than amplifiers with a low output impedance. If someone likes the results with a tube amp with a high output impedance, more power to them.
I audition speakers for the most part using amps with a low output impedance and have found speakers I like. I see no reason to muck up their response with an amp with a high out put impedance. But if someone prefers something else, that's there privilege. I advise people to get equipment they prefer.
You actually give no reason why anyone should believe reviewers and audiophiles who claim to hear differences in equipment that appear to be below commonly recognized audio thresholds. Now, if they did controlled DBTs which showed they could, fine. A secure audiophile might extol a piece of equipment, and if asked he/she had done a controlled DBT, could just say, "No." But you and others just react, which leads me to hypothesize that you are not very secure.
Research has shown that most people prefer speakers with similar characteristics, so if several purely subjective reviewers like a speaker, I may put it on an an audition list. But even so, I find a good set of measurements more reliable than reviewer's opinions. My favorite speaker reviewers also do measurements. But of course, you admit that speaker measurements have some value so we agree that, at least. I notice you do FR measurements in your room.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
You actually give no reason why anyone should believe reviewers and audiophiles who claim to hear differences in equipment that appear to be below commonly recognized audio thresholds.
I'll be happy to fill in the obvious answer: we who hear lots of different components do too.
But of course, you admit that speaker measurements have some value so we agree that, at least.
To a point, sure. I find it worth the effort to experiment with room placement and treatments for them to sound their best.
Me:
You actually give no reason why anyone should believe reviewers and audiophiles who claim to hear differences in equipment that appear to be below commonly recognized audio thresholds.
E-stat:
I'll be happy to fill in the obvious answer: we who hear lots of different components do too.
My reply:
So what is the reason? You again play on an equivocation, as "hear" can refer to perception or detection. That's why I often talk about detecting differences.
I am only mildly in your perceptions about small differences in electronics, but I believe you have them.
But I simply see no reason to accept that you actually can detect small differences unless backed up by scientific data. This could be:
A. Measured differences above recognized thresholds. (Stereophile once did a poorly designed DBT between tube and a SS amp, which unsurprisingly got a positive result whereas they could have just noted that the two amps had audible differences in their measured FR into the speaker load).
B. Results of controlled blind tests.
As I said, I can listen to equipment to form preferences. I don't need you or some reviewer to do it for me.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
So what is the reason?Lots of practiced ears hear the same qualitative differences.
I can listen to equipment to form preferences. I don't need you or some reviewer to do it for me.
Developing preferences has never been the role of an audio reviewer. It is to reduce a huge field of possible components to a smaller number you can audition. As for preferences, those should be clearly stated in advance by the reviewer. Over time, you may then judge the comments in context of those preferences. They can also suggest qualities that you may never have heard before or be aware of.
It was JWC who introduced me to Dayton-Wright electrostats when I was 19 which became a lasting effect. I tended to prefer speakers that he liked as well. HP, on the other hand, was more about precise imaging, dynamic range and low end punch and less about coherency. While the IRS were definitely impressive sounding, I found the woofer towers sounded like they belonged to a different speaker. That bothered me, but clearly not Harry. He also tended to listen at higher levels than either the good doctor or me. Times I would visit Sea Cliff, I would typically turn down the sub level when I listened alone (then restored his setting). On one occasion, he actually preferred my adjusted setting.
On the other hand, I was very much in tune with his amplification preferences. Hated the Halcros, had mixed impressions over the Edge and ASR amps, wasn't really happy with the Western Electric SE amps (at least on the Nolas), but really enjoyed both the VTL Wotans and Siegfrieds (bought my 450s following hearing the former). They brought home the most natural sounding rendition allowing me to truly hear some of my favorite music as I had not previously heard them. Still happy twelve years later. Fortunately, my speakers are not affected so much by their relatively high source impedance.
It should always be you who makes the decision based upon your musical tastes and preferences. The best reviewers can make it easier for you to in effect audition far more gear than you would likely get a chance to by yourself.
edit: BTW, I had never really optimized the HT system when I updated the processor to a newer Emotiva unit. I just got finished doing that. As with the upstairs system, it look lots of experimentation measuring the effect of a range of changes albeit using different methods. In the end, I found the optimum low pass for the subs, high pass for the mains and center and used the parametric EQ to apply a bit of attenuation (-3db) at two frequencies in the 99-105 hz region. There are still 3 db room nulls around 80 and 160 hz, but the response is now more linear and neutral sounding.
Edits: 02/23/15 02/23/15 02/23/15
E-stat
"Lots of practiced ears hear the same qualitative differences."
That is certainly an unproved assertion with a lot of equipment, notably accurate electronics. I expect that when electronics sound different, there is a measurable reason for it.
E-stat
"Developing preferences has never been the role of an audio reviewer."
Of course reviewers develop preferences for audio equipment! They make recommendations as to how good they think various pieces of equipment are. Some even make lists. Stereophile even has a list of Recommended Components, issued periodically.
Perhaps you mean equipment reviewers do not try to change the "musical tastes and preferences" of their readers."
E-stat adds
" It is to reduce a huge field of possible components to a smaller number you can audition."
Uhhh yeah. I see ads on Comedy Central involving a Captain Obvious. There are indeed more components, even more speakers than anyone can personally audition. Some we may not have even heard about. Some are only available with difficulty. So one needs some way of selecting equipment to audition, and reviewers, internet comments, friends, dealers, etc. can provide input. Do such people, including reviewer, actually know if different models of accurate electronics operated within their design limits sound better than others. Most probably not. If a reviewer thought that a big Bryston amplifier did not sound as good as a big Parasound amp or the MF Titan, I would pay no attention to it, unless there is some good reason to believe him. A good set of measurements is handy here.
E-stat
"As for preferences, those should be clearly stated in advance by the reviewer."
You mean like Julian Hirsch did? LOL
E-stat
"The best reviewers can make it easier for you to" in effect audition far more gear than you would likely get a chance to by yourself."
I am not sure what you mean here. Sure, professional reviewers audition a lot more equipment than I do, there's no "in effect" about it. They do it. As for me, this is hardly anything I would regard as me "in effect" auditioning equipment!
What about speakers and lists Recommended Component? Well, reviewer evaluations can give some idea of what they think about how well the product compares to others. On the other hand, a good set of measurements is more reliable. I have had objections to my procedure from a couple of reviewers, one of whom, at least, simply does not understand speaker measurements even as well as I do. But I find such performance measurements to be useful, and what business has anyone else to object to that? I use speaker measurements (Soundstage, Stereophile, and Audio Ideas Guide, chiefly) as a screening tool. If a speaker has mediocre or worse measurements, I certainly will not spend time and effort to seek it out, no matter what purely subjective reviewers say, though if I came across it by chance, I might audition such a speaker if I had the time.
Some years ago, I read the Paradigm was coming out with a no holds barred speaker line, the Signature line. When my dealer got the S2 in, I took some time to audition them, and I was very impressed with them as they seemed to me to be among the finest speakers I had ever heard (you don't have to agree). This was not a time to buy as my wife and I were soon about to leave to care for her aging mother. which took some time. During the months we were away, I was able to audition the S2 again, even the S8, along with a number of other speakers by PSB, Dynaudio, B & W, Dali, and others I have forgotten.
So, I knew I liked the S2. But were there others even better? Reviewers come in here, as well. First of all, I found good sets of measurements of the S2 in two reviews, one in Soundstage and the other in Soundstage. John Atkinson and Doug Schneider liked it a lot. Audio Ideas Guide reviewed the S4, and Andrew Marshall liked it a lot. The measurements were superb, and three of my favorite speaker reviewers spoke very highly of the Signature line. There is always the chance that I might like some other monitor speaker even better, but with superb measurements and three competent reviewers who thought the Signature line was first class, I was pretty confident not only that they would do me fine, but that it was unlikely that there was any monitor much better than the S2. And of course, there is a certain cachet to having speakers given a Class A, limited LF extension, rating by Stereophile.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
I expect that when electronics sound different, there is a measurable reason for it.
Perhaps, but you'll never find why in the data presented by Stereophile, Audio, Soundstage, Audioholics, etc.
Of course reviewers develop preferences for audio equipment!
I'll respond again to your previous comment:
I can listen to equipment to form preferences. I don't need you or some reviewer to do it for me.
Of course you don't need help forming preferences. We aleady have preferences as individuals. Why on earth do you think reviewers attempt to mold your preferences? They tell you what they observe in light of their own preferences.
What about speakers and lists Recommended Component?
They are a reflection of their favorites based upon recently reviewed gear .
On the other hand, a good set of measurements is more reliable.
Reliable for perhaps a few basic characteristics that you hear immediately anyway. But they provide little insight to important characteristics like imaging, coherency, balance, etc.
I was very impressed with them as they seemed to me to be among the finest speakers I had ever heard (you don't have to agree).
Why should I disagree as your experience? On the other hand, I find it sad that the best you've heard is some little boxes . Those create a lifelike image to you? Mind you, I have some mini-monitors in both the HT and in a bedroom system. They sound nice, but severely lack scale.
You mean like Julian Hirsch did? LOL
Julian Hirsch? His hearing acuity is the same today as it was thirty years ago.
And of course, there is a certain cachet to having speakers given a Class A, limited LF extension, rating by Stereophile.
As for me, I couldn't care less!
Why is Halcro the number (never heard one) one punching bag when discussing amplifiers, there are many others failing to deliver, why only Halcro all the time. Morricab for eg, bags both VTL and Lamm.
Whats the beef with Halcro and for the record, it had issues when i looked at it's bench test, so no suprise, if driving below 8 ohm speakers of low sensitivity...
Regards,
Edits: 02/23/15
I found it to have a very unnaturally lean tonal balance lacking harmonic richness like you hear with the real thing. It was all bones and no meat. Think tundra in winter .
Which is how I find many amplifiers that use prodigious amounts of "corrective" NFB and also why I'm not a fan of switching amps.
E-Stat,Thanks for the response, Was that consistent with all speakers or just on panels/ dipoles ..? As to NFB, I'm not totally disagreeing, but, isn't that the same as saying , amplifiers with High THD sound natural to you ..:)
We all have our "things" to look at when we select, for me, wimpy high -z drive only amplifiers, just sound wimpy to me, so i stay away from amplifiers that wont exhibit true voltage source into low-Z.
Regards..
Edits: 02/23/15
Was that consistent with all speakers or just on panels/ dipoles.
Driving Nola Grand Reference at Sea Cliff which is really neither.
but, isn't that the same as saying , amplifiers with High THD sound natural to you ..:)
Everything's relative. I find the quality and spectrum of distortion more important than the quantity below certain thresholds (1-2%). Companies like Ayre and Pass make low distortion amps using zero feedback.
High NFB designs tend to cascade their distortions in very non-linear ways using multiple stages. Fortunately, it's usually very easy to spot those designs as they have unnecessarily high damping factors.
Again, Not disagreeing with you about high NFB amplfiers, a balance is necessary, too much versus too little, is the Ayre no NFB or low NFB, many like to say none, when it's not ...
Fully "balanced" high NFB amplfiers can sound good, single ended not .
Regards..
Edits: 02/23/15
I believe like many of Nelson Pass' designs, the Ayre MX-R uses no global feedback, only small amounts of local feedback. Like my '81 Stasis.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: