Home Tube DIY Asylum

Do It Yourself (DIY) paradise for tube and SET project builders.

RE: Slagle is the actual scientist here...

On 9/2/2012 9:00 PM, noreply@audioasylum.com wrote:> Wouldn't you like to try to make*sure*, when you think you perceive a
> difference in the tonal quality between silver wiring and copper wiring, as> to whether you are being influenced by your knowledge of the construction?


Chris:

Blind tests both times and the "test" results were obvious and repeatable, plus multiple experienced listeners were involved, so I KNOW. I am actually totally sure.

At the RMAF Slagleformer test, we had me, Slagle, Jeffrey Jackson, Frank Schroeder, Arthur Loesch, Larry Moore (I think) and a half-dozen other pros and hardcores participating in the blind test. Several engineering and science degrees represented. Everybody heard the differences and, in this case, there was unanimous agreement on which sounded better. Unit B -- a.k.a. Silver.

So, I KNOW. I'd like to do an extended listen and I expect Dave to send me a pair for sticking up for him here, but the initial reaction was very encouraging.

With Silbatone, we tried silver vs. copper for several types of transformers, sometimes taking a copper proto while waiting for silver wire from the smelter. EVERY TIME, a team of myself, jc morrison, Dr. Bae the physics dude, and my friend MJ were floored by the positive difference of silver. VAST, FUNDAMENTAL shifts in presentation.

Yeah, we knew which one was silver in some of those cases but, really, I trust myself and these guys to make this evaluation with open ears and minds. We have been doing this for decades. We are experienced pros.

You might not know or believe it from reading about it, but is that our problem or yours?

You should try this experiment sometime. I don't think you will have that skeptical attitude about how knowing one is more expensive skews perception after doing it yourself.

At the Silbatone listening room. we have several million dollars of rare WE and high end gear set up. $7000 cartridges. We have amps with $6000 worth of rare tubes in them. Three or four $75,000 CD players. It is all funny money after awhile, especially when it not MY money! ;op

A couple grams of silver really doesn't impress me that much. This is a bogus argument.


------

> Wouldn't you like to know whether a difference you perceive can >actually be measured or not?


I feel I am measuring sound --or let's say "gauging" or "evaluating" it to bust out of the deeply-grooved "measurement" dialogue-- with my ears the best tool for the job, because they are the tools I will using to listen with.

If I hear difference s and see differences in the measurements, how do I "KNOW" which differences on the sweep correspond with certain very difficult to describe factors in the sonic presentation.

And are we saying that better measurements = better sound? Or that if a more poorly measuring unit sounds better to me I am somehow mistaken?

I don't see the clear causal link between the measurements and the sonic effect. I am impressed with John Atkinson's attempts to make this leap when interpreting his review measurements, but I really can't take it all at face value. Good try though. Not science enough to please the rabid objectivists if they think it through, perhaps, but I am sure they are happy to see those pretty AP graphs. That's all many "objectivists" want anyhow...graphs. Then they are satisfied.

I actually measured a lot of stuff. I had a complete lab set up for many years and I fixed, modified, and built RF and and audio gear 12 hours a day.

One I started building SE amps, I realized that a scope, 331A distortion analyzer, Fluke 8060A etc. was actually useless for telling me what sounds good. Useful for chasing noise and making sure the unit was working properly, but that's about it.

This stuff was totally useless for predicting how things will sound and often there was an inverse correlation.

----------


> I can't imagine being willing to live in such a muddled
> state of confusion between objectivity and subjectivity.

Ah, but you are in it.

Objectivity is a subjective construction, to start my tape loop again.

That is why religion and nationalism have been so popular all these years. The quest for a secure link to undisputed sacred truth tied in with the fundamental reality of the universe. We all want that.

We may like to fight the notion of cultural relativity, usually unconsciously, but it is a fundamental condition of human existence.

It is not a bad thing. It is the only game in town.

I understand that this simple statement that "objectivity is a subjective construction" is very difficult to absorb and even harder to project into your own experience. Possibly even harder for one with your scientific training, because there is an inherent conflict with traditional notions of "objectivity."

How about this one: Nature vs culture. OK, what is "nature"...yes, a cultural construction! Both "nature" and "culture" are cultural entities.

In a lot of societies, efforts are made to naturalize culture and to deny the hand of man in forming and structuring human activities, preferring to see the way "we" live as a natural, god given thing.


But it is a subjective, contingent cultural construction like all the other ones. This is all we have, all we can do.


I'm not trying to be snide and snarky. I sense that you (talking to Chris here) are a smart and sincere guy. Maybe you can use what I am telling you and maybe not, but it is fundamentally relevant.

I went to college for something like 13 or 15 years working on these questions. I have two Ivy degrees and have been through two graduate programs. I am not making this stuff up to troll audio forums. I think I am representing fairly mainstream and non-contentious but somewhat esoteric academic positions here. And I think the points I am making are useful for living a reflective life, otherwise I wouldn't bother.


Now, I think it is possible to consciously bracket out tastes and preferences to a certain degree, and it is possible to switch into a different phenomenological program and do the kind of "test listening" I previously said was apart from day to day music listening, But, n order to do this we must know the problems and implications of what we are doing and approach them open-eyed and head on. This is the way out of the bag, if there is one.


---------------

Physics is cool. I was a Physics major at UPenn for two weeks. I did AP in a very tough high school and got top scores on AP tests in sciences and math. Then they put me in a mechanics class with five Chinese students selected by the Red China government for a special program and an Indian teacher who did not speak English.

The first class session, with three blackboards full of scribbles that I thought might be matrix algebra but wasn't sure, the teacher made a slight mistake and all other five students started screaming at him. I said, WHOA...WTF am I doing here? Those Chinese cats were way way beyond me in math. I thought I would coast through mechanics...haha!

I switched majors to something I'm actually good at!

I don't think physics students learn what I learned, so I consider it an even trade.

As for which path leads to greater understanding of musical audio and the people who do it, and knowing what physics is and does, I'll take anthropology.

------------------------------

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent -- Wittgenstein

Free your mind and your ass will follow -- Parliament/Funkadelic



Edits: 09/02/12

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Amplified Parts  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.