Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
71.67.188.239
In Reply to: RE: Have you listened? posted by Davey on October 30, 2014 at 20:27:13
How about accepting that these are real differences and trying to figure out why that might be, instead of presuming that "its AC" is all there is to it?
Follow Ups:
Yeah, I can appreciate your point-of-view, but some of this stuff borders on the ridiculous.
Heck, if an audiophile told me he saw the sun rise in the west this morning, do I need to accept that and investigate the issue?It's always "have you listened?" :) You've heard me say this before, but subjective evaluation is (by definition) incontrovertible, so it's an impenetrable fall-back position if somebody plays that card. It's the easy way out.
In the audio world there seems to be a wide overlap between self-deception and common sense. One has to trump the other eventually. :)
Cheers,
Dave.
Edits: 11/01/14
If it were coming from someone else I would have discounted things and left it as a "maybe". Since It is Ric, and I have tried some of his tweaks and mods I know he has a keen ear, careful listening evaluation process, and much less of a tendency for self deception.
Being an engineer I know that the science is often left outside the door in favor of engineering principles that are sufficient approximations of reality and have the great advantage of actually allowing calculation of a design. However, they are not complete models for the actual physics involved. Which brings me to the point that dismissing something as "subjective" is simply not a useful standpoint. The useful one is to actually try out the scheme in question and hear for yourself. Then if something is there you can try to measure it, since you are the pro. For the audiophile the fact of a consistent improvement from listener to listener is the only factor that matters before trying it out for one's self.
I keep finding EE pros who prefer playing amateur psychologist, ascribing biases and delusions to listeners making observations, to testing things audiophiles pick up on. Sensible Sound dropped off my reading list since the reviewers kept dismissing their own observations as products of bias or beer, rather than believing that amps or CD players might sound different within similar technical performances. That doesn't make someone rational, it makes them blind to the limits of the models they use and the narrow scope of measurements they know to perform.
To give you a recent example I came across, a friend sent me his email correspondence with a vintage tube equipment restorer (apparently a retired EE) who had just converted the output transformers of an industrial amp to operate with 10 ohm Tannoy horn speakers and said the amp measured like a dog and pointed to Robert Deutch's review of a 211 tube SET on a pair of 8 ohm Avant Garde Uno with 104 db sensitivity and said that the THD measurements are terrible, which above 1 W they are, but you don't listen that far up the amp's power, so Atkinson's obvious aversion to the amp's benchtop performance was quite irrelevant to its performance in the field on appropriate speakers.
http://www.stereophile.com/content/air-tight-atm-211-tube-monoblock-power-amplifier-measurements
Note that observations precede scientific models and engineering simplifications and approximations follow quite a time later. So when a credible observer finds out something then help us get something useful out of it, not throw "subjective" at it.
You've missed the point. I don't discount subjective evaluation but view it as just one part of evaluation. I listen to things subjectively also, but I don't dismiss objective evaluation in spite of it. Can the inverse be true as well? :)
A subjective evaluation doesn't necessarily define a situation that inspires/requires further objective testing to find the reason. (That thinking is where you run off on a tangent.)
Some (not all) subjective evaluations regarding certain components and/or conclusions can be immediately rejected because of various reasons. Maybe physical laws are being broken.....maybe Ohm's Law is being broken.....maybe a misunderstanding of how a voltage source works.....etc, etc. When I see a conclusion that would require one of those things to happen, I raise my eyebrow.
I believe Ric hears a difference with inductor connection direction. The issue is how he explains it.
When I see statements like "the only real knowledge is listening," there's not much to do but shake my head. Statements like that indicate a closed mind.....yet in this particular thread it's funny because I'll be the one accused of closed-mindedness. How surreal is that? :)
Cheers,
Dave.
Having spoken to Ric I know he would not shy away from admitting he has no idea why something works and that a speculation is good enough for him so long as he can get useful results. But he does do repeated listening tests to confirm (or not) his observations.
Why is his "truth is in the listening" an indication of a closed mind rather than his attitude of accepting things he hears whether or not he understands their physics?
Satie, You can't dispute Davies input here. You really can't.
You could try, but You would end up far out in the humbug area.
Cheers!
The one who succeeded was the one who didn't know it was impossible.
Can you speculate successfully if data points are invalid? Listening tests are not necessarily valid data points. Even objective tests are not necessarily valid data points....but they're better than listening tests.You seem to view subjective testing as more robust than objective testing. I don't understand that.
Why is this concept (and my point of view) so difficult to grasp?It's easy to dismiss my opinion as that of an "amateur psychologist." I had hoped for better from you.
Cheers,
Dave.
Edits: 11/02/14
I have more respect for my hearing than perhaps I should, but there have been years where I heard more test tones than music. I trained myself to listen to particular aspects of sound quality rather than the emotional gestalt of the music when doing critical listening.
Having strong measured distortion on the overall signal does not necessarily do any harm to the low level resolution at practical listening levels. I found that some noise can be innocuous and easily separated from music by the mind, so I wonder what the point is in lowering it any further. I keep wondering about the fact that feedback lowers distortion measurements yet outside of the bass frequencies the results can sound worse. I played with toasty bias settings that had profound effects on the spatial and tonal quality of the music in general but caused obvious distortion at high volume that wasn't there at low bias settings. obviously the amp was being cooked so that heat dissipation and PS current capacity were challenged at less than half the rated output at low (factory) bias. But the payoff in the lower volume level was far more important for performance.
Which raises the question of what measurements matter and is all noise and distortion equally "bad"?
I am doubting that we know what to measure and perhaps more importantly, how to weight it.
As far as listening evaluations are concerned I take them more seriously if they are repeatable and independently observable by different people. Particularly if that is in different systems. More importantly, I take them more seriously if they are offering particular SQ descriptions. Instrumental locations on the soundstage, tonal and textural correctness of instruments and transient structure like piano hammer strikes, string picking and valve clap sounds on woodwinds. FR extension descriptions and detail retrieval. I find that those are not so subjective and have value while "good/better" and "bad/worse" gestalt descriptors are useless and it is beyond me why anyone would conduct a listening test with those as output.
The worst thing is that even cheap relatively early digital gear tested better than analog - tape or LP, with better S/N or dynamic range and less THD not to speak of the lack of rumble and wow and flutter, and fuller extension of FR, and lack of end of side distortion, but was entirely unlistenable unless you chose deliberately unresolving speakers with good dynamics. For a number of years in the late 80s I recorded all my CDs to tape - R to R and then a Nak 3 head cassette with metal tape. I didn't mind the minor loss of detail and some compression so long as the edge was taken off. I very much minded it in recording LP.
That brought me to the conclusion that we are just not covering psychoacoustically significant measures in the standard testing of audio gear. That not all distortion is important, that not all noise is intrusive, and that something is wrong with subtractive distortion canceling schemes - feedback (particularly global), balanced circuits - to some extent - and even DC servos, though they eliminate coupling caps.
I wonder why we should care to have less than 0.1% distortion and better than 90db dynamic range or S/N.
I am constantly bothered by the fact that pros do not try to figure out what to measure in order to tell what it is that is so consistently off in digital and feedback. I can say that whatever it is that is so wrong in PCM digital, it is not there in DSD playback via non-PCM chips as in the PS Audio Direct Stream.
Does anyone know of a simple inexpensive single ended pre and power amps with no feedback to use in my setup - with the amp driving the mids (96 db sensitivity). Tube or SS. If necessary I am willing to put my jittery hands and poor eyesight to use to build it myself if there is some tried out and tested design I can be pointed to.
BTW here is one way to measure what is going on between orientations of caps:
"...you can do a simple test to determine which is the outside foil terminal. Set the scope up to the most sensitive vertical scale (20mV or less, preferably) and connect the scope probe across the capacitor (ground to one side of the cap, probe tip to the other). Grab the capacitor tightly with your fingers, and note the amplitude of the induced 60Hz AC signal (or 50Hz if you are on the other side of the pond). While still holding the capacitor tightly, reverse the scope leads and you should see a dramatic difference in the amplitude of the induced AC signal. The orientation with the lowest induced signal is the one you want, and the ground lead of the scope is connected to the outside foil in that position. Mark it, and connect that side of the cap to the lowest impedance point in the circuit, typically the driving source plate when used as a coupling cap, or the grounded end if used in a shunt position. ... "
http://www.aikenamps.com/index.php/where-to-connect-the-outside-foil-on-capacitors
It is an RF shielding effect where the RF exposed outer foil can be connected either to ground, a power rail, or the low impedance side of a circuit to minimize RF injection into the circuit.
The fact of AC has nothing to do with the audible effect.
Do you even read my posts?
How about this one from the other day regarding capacitor shielding?
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/MUG/messages/21/212903.html
"The fact of AC has nothing to do with the audible effect." I know you didn't mean it that way, but that sounds like you're agreeing with me. :)
This is ridiculous. You HAVE to stay focused and quit putting words in my mouth.
Dave.
Actually, I was hoping to find a physics discussion about transients which don't have a sinusoidal signal and are not strictly AC and how they might be affected, since imaging is largely dominated by transients and these are typically < <1ms in the rise portion and <5ms in the release portion so localization and size determination, which occur prior to fine intensity determination and the later pitch identification, might be somehow affected by the asymmetry of internal and external plates. Didn't find anything
Sorry, I missed that one.
I didn't intend to put words in your mouth. I just looked up the issue and found a good discussion of it so appended it to my long winded blathering about decades of frustration.
No, You got me all backwards.
Maybe I was too unclear in my translation from my native Swedish to English-
Sorry in that case!
The one who succeeded was the one who didn't know it was impossible.
Sorry, responded to the wrong post.
That post was meant for Satie. I'm sure he will figure that out....with some subjective evaluation. :)
Cheers,
Dave.
Hehe!
Thanks. Got a bit worried there for a moment. :)
The one who succeeded was the one who didn't know it was impossible.
It's not a dispute, it is trying to change his attitude so he would speculate as to why things like this cap orientation issue might be, or try out such things that I can't - either because I can't afford to or because I am not a pro in the area.
We meet on this forum repeatedly with these issues and I want him to participate in the speculative process rather than play woodie. You don't advance by finding reasons not to try something that has been observed, even if engineering principles indicate it shouldn't be so. Being the pro he could speculate as to the mechanism by which the observed phenomenon came about.
I speculate constantly in order to find ways to improve the sound in my system and to figure out where something I heard might have come from so I can manipulate it to do better. I fall on my face more often than not. But I find it useful on net.
Well, You are right both in some ways.
But the final rule is that if it's just the subjective hearing, that even is not necessarily agreed upon as it is subjectivity that is the single judge, then it can never ever be a standing fact.
It must be supported by physical rules and is and will be dismissed if it will cast physical rules aside.
There might be or probably are rules/physical laws that can be added upon. That is to keep an open and sound mind.
But as David said before, breaking those is not keeping an open and sound mind.The basic FACT is that a human being can NOT be used as a factual test equipment as it is TOO prone to outside influence.
The one who succeeded was the one who didn't know it was impossible.
Edits: 11/02/14 11/02/14 11/02/14
...a difference doesn't exist (hereafter 'IICMI'), which I find to be HIGHLY arrogant. It presumes that they believe they know exactly what to measure (that is, that these measurements are reliable indicators of sonic quality, and that their machines and processes are perfect. If IICMI were true, we'd still be listening to not-very-musical-sounding amplifiers with THD&N of 0.001%.
Obviously there are sloppy AND there are careful ways to listen for differences, just as there are sloppy and careful ways to describe sonic differences*. Not all of us hi-end audiofools are golden-eared audiofools (GEAs), too, so some differences that some of us hear simply can't be heard by others, even if we want to. This 'failure' brings me to the other aspect of high arrogance--those who state ridgidly that if they can't hear it, the difference doesn't exist. I don't claim to be a GEA; I hear some differences fairly quickly, others I have to work at to hear, and some I can't hear. But I still come to conclusions on sonic quality over time, and as a result of my willingness to try to improve my system and its parts, my system is the best-overall-sounding system I've ever heard. Other GEAs I respect have told me that my system is the best they have ever heard. But I'll still be trying to improve it.
* Those I laugh at and stop reading are described as, for instance, making the music totally different or making night-and-day differences.
----------
Tin-eared audiofool, large-scale-Classical music lover, and damned-amateur fotografer.
William Bruce Cameron: "...not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
Subjective evaluation, by definition, doesn't require empirical data to back up a conclusion. Yet I'm the one who's arrogant? Classic!!And it gets even better because subjective evaluation IS considered empirical data by a subjectivist. Once again, how surreal is that? :)
I also think you fellas should re-read my posts very carefully and not knee-jerk into these strawman replies.
If somebody could just explain to me the mechanism that makes a coil directional in an AC circuit, I'll stipulate and admit I'm wrong. :)
My goodness.
Dave.
Edits: 11/02/14 11/02/14
...but I don't need to understand the physics of why that can be possible. If a trusted audiofile tells us that he can hear differences in careful, controlled tests, then I believe him whether I can hear those differences or not. We're back to 'if I can't measure it, it doesn't exist' argument in the form of 'if I can't understand the physics of it, the difference can't (or at least doesn't) exist'. Don't you think that the universe's people get smarter over time? That our understanding of physics has improved over the last 5 or 500 years? That the audio industry knows how to make better-sounding...say...capacitors than they did 20 years ago? Do you really believe that sonic differences don't exist unless you, right now, understand the physics of the situation?
I believe that EVERY change to a music-reproduction system changes its sound whether I can hear it or not. What do you believe about that?
.
----------
Tin-eared audiofool, large-scale-Classical music lover, and damned-amateur fotografer.
William Bruce Cameron: "...not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
"I believe that EVERY change to a music-reproduction system changes its sound whether I can hear it or not. What do you believe about that?"
I don't believe that. :) Certain "changes" simply can not alter the sound of a system.
What if I changed/reversed the connections of my (symmetrical) speaker wires at both ends? Does that change my systems sound?
What if I changed/reversed the connections of my speaker wires at just one end? Does that change my systems sound? In that case it might because of even-order distortion in the speaker drivers since they're probably asymmetrical.
The first case is black/white but the second case is gray.
Certainly there's a gray area here between black and white on various evaluations. When you venture out of that gray area with conclusions it gets tricky. That's when guys like me might challenge you. :)
As I've said NUMEROUS times, subjective evaluations are incontrovertible and I can't argue with them. Find me a post where I said "if I can't measure it, it doesn't exist."
These strawman replies are really getting irritating. :)
Dave.
Wow! Easy there now!
I truly hope that You read what I wrote or at least understood it.
What I repeated from Davey was that anything that anyone is saying that they can hear and BREAKS the rules of physical laws should and are questioned.
What You are discussing is subjective impression and is HIGHLY questionable as it comes down to individuals and therefore I could easily state any impression I want without any jury being able or having the authority to question my impression.
This is why I took the liberty of test known speakers against each other in my own room with the same equipment.
This based on my own occupation as a calibration engineer.
I am constantly irritated when I read about some tests on some speakers that in REALITY are inferior to other that got lesser listening testimonial.
Yes, we must/almost forced to trust audio reviewers sometimes and sometimes they are actually perfectly right.
But at the same time, they are HUMAN with all that comes with just being that.
That is why impressions are not to be taken as absolute facts.
Why do You think the expression "Snake oil" is used in the audio community?
And I also said that audio has not seen its bottom line yet in measuring and will probably be adding to some physics. Who knows, right?
But breaking them? Hell no!
Cheers!
The one who succeeded was the one who didn't know it was impossible.
Hear hear!
The one who succeeded was the one who didn't know it was impossible.
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: