|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
174.252.113.50
In Reply to: RE: I think so but what's that got to do with this discussion? posted by Goober58 on November 06, 2012 at 13:52:00
The OP was making the case for measurements being better than human hearing."Human perception via senses are limited. Both in terms of degree and especially in quantification ability. Because of this academia & sciences developed empirical measurement techniques to quantify aspects of phenomenon normally observed by human perception but were difficult to quantify. As electronics developed, devices came available to measure all aspects of the specific applications being explored. Most of these devices were capable of measuring parameters far beyond the ability of human perception. This is why in the case of the "listening dog" example we can actually measure, using a device like a spectrum analyzer, what the dog is hearing and what we cannot."
I am making the case for human hearing being better, at least for some aspects of the sound, than meaurements. Let me rephrase my previous post. If one system produces a soundstage height that is taller than a second system, how would you go about measuring the systems to determine what was responsible? Same for musicality - for a system with perceived better musicality than a second system, how would you go about measuring the systems to determine what was responsible?
Edits: 11/06/12Follow Ups:
Two different systems, two different soundstage heights - unless all the measurements are identical it has nothing to do with disproving my point.
Systems that sound different will measure different. PERIOD!
"Systems that sound different will measure different. PERIOD!"
It's probably safe to say you haven't played around with Schumann Frequency Generators, Silver Rainbow Foil, Cream Electret, Red X Pen, things of that nature - things that have no direct or even indirect affect on house wiring, cabling, the speakers, electronics or room acoustics. If you see what I mean.
I was positive I head identified the processed CDs in my blind test, couldn't believe how much better they sounded. Unfortunately the disks I selected as being improved were not the ones processed.I also believe orange or green LEDs sound better.
So I have great respect for things that effect our perception of performance or enjoyment of audio - but in no way do I think these things actually cause sonic changes in spite of how they effect our enjoyment.
It's good enough for me if I or someone else believes something makes a sonic difference - whether or not it does or not makes no difference.
Edits: 11/06/12
I guess you are the exception that proves the rule as else I know had the opposite results, including a great number of reviewers, editors of audio magazines, and designers of high end electronics. Besides, the magic chip directly affects the actual performance of the CD and is not one of those things that go bump in the night - things such as Cream Electret, Rainbow Foil, etc. that affect perception.
I stand corrected, if you say the chip actually changes the sound I believe you. Unfortunately none of the treated disks were selected as being improved......
I can pick out a treated disc, i.e., the improved one, every single time. We are talking about the original orange Intelligent Chip, right? I wrote a paper on it once. It was the product of the show at CES 2005.
Edits: 11/07/12 11/07/12
And I picked a disk 3 out of 3 times in 3 blind tests each with 3 disks, 1 treated and 2 not treated. Unfortunately the disk I selected as being improved was never the one processed with the intelligent chip.
I originally thought this proved the IC didn't make any difference but I suppose it might mean the changes made were not considered an improvement.
And yes before I did this "test" I believed the IC made an improvement.
Truth be it told I would have been more happy with the product had I never did the tests in order to verify what I thought I was hearing. I'll know better next time.....
You are the only person who has reported such results out of many hundreds I'm familiar with. That's why I said you are the exception that proves the rule, an outlier. Blind tests are not the end all do all they're sometimes cracked up to be, apparently.
Edits: 11/07/12
If I recall correctly the experiences of others varied all over the place. Some people loved it - I was one of those - until I tested my results.
What's really bizarre the disks that weren't treated but selected as improved still sound as of they were improved to this day. I swear I knew these were the treated disks - but I was wrong.
You lost me. Do you think the unprocessed discs were actually improved during the test? Do you think the processed disc was degraded by the chip? I don't understand what you think happened. How did you determine the discs were absolutely identical prior to the test?
Edits: 11/07/12
I used 3 different CDs, ie. title and artist, for each test all of which I felt I was intimately familiar with.
I only made an effort to guess which disk had been made to sound better.
I believed I could hear improvements in one CD, in each set of 3, and still to this day believe the disks sound better than prior to the test.
Unfortunately the disks I selected as sounding better were not the disks that were treated.
No I don't believe the treated disks were degraded.
What do I think happened? I think I was fooled into believing something sounded different when it did not, that's what I think happened.
Still not clear what your test consisted of. Did it consist of three different CDs only or three sets of identical CDs? Maybe the system was still warming up so the untreated CDs sounded better as the test progressed. Who knows? That's why we can't make generalizations with one test, no matter how it turns out.
There were 9 different CDs, different artists and titles involved. I was very familiar with and had listened to each and every CD many many times. Actually I can make generalizations and form conclusions and share my results based on any experiences.
And scientific credibility? Heck no - but that's not the point. This test was good enough for me and all I needed to know I wasn't going to buy another IC. Like I said early I could have continued buying ICs and been happy with the "results" I was getting based on my feeling that the chip was actually improving the sound.
If you thought the untreated CDs had better sound after the test than before then something's wrong somewhere, if you don't mind my saying so. Personally, I think you made the test way too complicated. The easiest way to test the chip is start with two identical CDs -- you can burn two identical copies or establish that two commercial CDs sound the same. Then treat one disc and compare the treated disc to the untreated disc. If you are unsure which disc sounds better you can A/B as many times as you like. Helpful Hint: the differences are much more obvious when the chip is placed inside the player instead of on top of the player.
Edits: 11/08/12
What a pita! Someone could have done that but not me.
If there's a difference I expect it to be obvious - some subtle change is irrelevant to me.
I did admit if I didn't resort to this simple objective test I could have lived on with the belief that my enjoyment of the CDs was being enhanced by the use of the IC.
But seeing how this wasn't a one time purchase, it was something I would have had to subscribe to in order to treat all my CDs I needed a bit more convincing.
What I find really interesting though is that the disks I thought were treated still sound better than I remember them sounding before I treated the other disks. Interesting to me but not really surprising.
"If there's a difference I expect it to be obvious - some subtle change is irrelevant to me."
If there were only one possible change, then I would agree with you. However, there are many components and many possible changes and they can all add up. It can be that 10 imperceptible changes when combined add up to an obvious and relevant change. As an illustration of what I mean, a level change of 0.15 dB is going to be imperceptible to nearly everyone. However, ten changes could add up to a level change of 1.5 dB which would be obvious.
Excellence can seldom be realized with out rigorous attention to detail. Good enough won't cut it.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I take 3 CDs I've listened to dozens of times each. I treat one of them. If I can pick out the treated disk I buy more chips if not I don't.
Doesn't get any easier than that!
Like just about everything the chips are system dependent. Just look at what's happening with the WA Quantum Chips, or Schumann Frequency Generator, or Mpingo discs, or Rainbow Foil, crystals, or fuses, or even cables, fer cryin out loud. The later generation chips, including the Intelligent Box, circumvent some of the variables associated with the original Orange chip.There are perfectly good reasons why some people do not get results with some tweaks. For the specific case of the Intelligent Chip it's possible, as I pointed out 7 years ago, some players might be "problematic" for purposes of using the chip on top of the player. That's why I suggested using the chip inside the player. Perhaps your player was one of those Problematic Players, who knows. But that's just one more possible reason why you didn't get the results you were hoping for. Or maybe you did get the results you were looking for, difficult to say.
Edits: 11/08/12
"Or maybe you did get the results you were looking for, difficult to say."That's fair.
Edits: 11/08/12
I thought you'd like that one.
"If you thought the untreated CDs had better sound after the test than before then something's wrong somewhere, if you don't mind my saying so.
If you apply loving thoughts while hearing a recording of a musical performance then subsequent replays of that musical performance may evoke favorable associations. (Pavlovian) Moving into woo territory, if you evoke loving thoughts while playing a recording many times then it may make it more likely that others with enjoy the recording. (Sheldrakean) I have highly anecdotal evidence for both of these cases.
Presumably, one might get the inverse results by applying angry thoughts, but that's not something I'd be inclined to try.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Exactly, like the Japanese fellow (Dr. Emoto) who writes affirmative messages in water. when the water freezes the crystals are very beautiful. When he writes angry or unpleasant messages the crystals turn out ugly and ill-formed. He's all over YouTube. Quite reminiscent of the Red X Coordinate Pen, actually.
Edits: 11/08/12 11/08/12
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: