|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Do You guys read the HR AA? posted by Penguin on November 16, 2002 at 06:02:23:
Good input, Pigeon! I am surprised about the 4133. I suspect that Ole was referring to S/N rather than accuracy. This is important to me, because I just purchased two 4134 capsules and if there is an 'accuracy' problem, then I want to know about it. The rest of his input is more informative than any of the double-blind nonsense so far mentioned on this website.
Follow Ups:
You know poeple eat pidgeons :-). although i think it is hilarous. Thank you John Curly :-)Sorry i have not lauged this hard for days
On amore somber note it is inportant to bring some real world experience into the mix. We ars still dealing with poor aproximations of real world sounds, i think it is acceptable to ask the question, why is that? What is it preventing us to get 80% performace from our SOTA gear?
dee
;-D
Sorry Penguin, I make mistakes like that sometimes. I used to call Corey , Cory, and it drove him crazy!
I did find Ole's input refreshing, BECAUSE he actually works with sound systems, and hears differences. It is difficult to get better sound, but it will not be done by the folks taking about test procedures. They only tend to hold back progress.
""The smaller size of 4135 make it more accurate in frequency response, but S/N is worse.
I have some curves on 4135,4134,4133 compared."" (quote from Ole...)
""It is difficult to get better sound, but it will not be done by the folks taking about test procedures. They only tend to hold back progress"" (John Curl)One wonders how Ole got the curves for the mike elements. Perhaps it was on the shoulders of people before him, developing test procedures using and developing SOTA equipment. Perhaps he owns one pair of the shoulders, and is directly responsible for the tests responsible. I speak of.
You are not asking his opinion of the mikes..rather, the two of you are discussing actual repeatable, verifiable tests and curves. Not whether they sound more "full bodied, airy, sweeter, etc. But measured curves. They may sound "full bodied,...etc"., and many people would be comfortable talking about them in that fashion. But, electrical testing and nomenclature was used here, by Ole and John C.
Folks talking about test procedures? If you assume magic is responsible, test procedures are not useful. But that sounds suspiciously like "OZ", "pay no attention to the man in that booth".
If you assume tests will eventually be established to measure what is heard, then adopting the stance "they only tend to hold back progress" will in itself hold back progress. Didn't you just buy 20 grand of test equipment? Do you folow test procedures for using it?
For speaker cables, an additional constraint is the ability of testing high di/dt. A VERY difficult thing to do without error. That is my primary focus. But I don't think my focus is holding back progress.
Cables? Oh, somebody will find out...Maybe not JohnC, maybe not John E, but someone. And everybody else will learn and use, as they did with frequency responce, noise floor, S/N, IM, THD, TIM.
And, reporting failures to the world is as important as succeses. Why repeat?
I'm sure my stance is applicable to all testing, not just electrical.
TTFN, John
Hi John Es. I am now learning how to run my HP-3563 network analyser. Each day, I learn a few more techniques as to how to make better measurements. So far, I can easily duplicate my earlier work on low level wire distortion, and now I am measuring different brands of wires. Heck, I might even be able to measure differences in break-in and cryo treatment of wires. Time will tell.
For the record, B&K have done a great deal of work with their microphones. Thirty years ago, I built my own mike preamp for the 1" version of the B&K mike, and I learned how to make it quieter than the standard mike preamp. In 1973, I showed B&K how to lower the noise of their 2619 preamp by 10 dB, and I have the comparative measurements from B&K to prove it. All newer preamps have my 'upgrade' or its equivalent.
By the book, the 4133, is one of the flattest microphones on the planet. It's cousin, the 4134 is a somewhat less damped version, that is flat when used at 90 degrees rather than directly.
Measuring absolute frequency response in free air is problematic, because it is difficult to get an accurate source. Usually absolute frequency response is predicted, rather than directly measured.
Early on, like 30 years ago, spark gaps or firecrackers were used to create an impulsive source to measure rise time, for example. However, Herr Manger published a paper in the Montreaux session of the AES in 1986, that accurately measured the risetime of the 4133 and many other commercial mikes. The 4133 was about the best.
So when the 4133 is questioned, and found wanting, then enquiring minds want to know why. I WANT to see those test results, this is the kind of stuff that Ole and I do for a living.
No DBT here, just real engineering.
No DBT here, just real engineering.DBTs are a part of real audio engineering. Are you implying otherwise?
I certainly do not mean to imply that DBTs are necessary to design and develop audio products. However, to claim that DBTs are not "real" audio engineering is wrong in my view. I hope that clarifies my position.
Now if we can only get you to agree that cables can sound different......
nt
DBTs are a part of real audio engineering.Mike:
As much as I’ve been advocating the scientific method and DBTs here, the two-faced, devil’s advocate in me is going to have to question that statement.
Clearly, I think DBTs are unquestionably a part of real science. Last weekend I had extensive discussions on that subject with my nephew’s wife who is a physicist working on her PhD through Cal Berkley at the Lawrence Livermore lab. DBTs may also be a part of real engineering of the kind that you are accustomed to that involves primarily instrumentation (and, admittedly sonar).
But, if a designer such as John has discovered through experience that he can design audio products that are successful in the marketplace without the need to resort to DBTs, does that mean he is not a “real” audio engineer? Apparently he is confident that the improvements he designs into his products and perceives in sighted auditions will also be perceived by customers who audition his products. If he is wrong, he will fail in the marketplace. If he is right he will succeed.
John has succeeded with a number of different products, and I personally find it extremely difficult, from a rational viewpoint, to come to the conclusion that his success has been due entirely to what little, if any, advertising typically is associated with his products. Moreover, John may be a successful audio designer, but I don’t particularly associate special cosmetic appeal with most of John’s products (although his new JC-1s may be an exception).
My sometimes heated disagreements with John on this board and elsewhere are probably no secret. Yet I respect him, and his partners, as designers enough that within a couple of weeks I’ll be auditioning a pair of John’s monoblocks JC-1s, and that will be the first time in more years than I can remember that anything other than a Jeff Rowland amp has been in my system.
I believe that a number of high end audio designers operate much like John, without resorting to DBTs. Many of them are extremely successful in the marketplace. I’m well aware that many objectivists believe that their success is due entirely to advertising hype, review hype and cosmetics. Yet many of us who have been in this hobby for a number of years have an extremely difficult time believing that the success of certain designers and the failure of other designers is due entirely or even significantly to the success of advertising and the cosmetics backing their products. Most high end companies are not large enough or profitable enough to even engage in advertising, and usually when they do, at least in my opinion, their feeble attempts at effective advertising is pretty pitiful. Just thumb through an issue of Stereophile or The Absolute Sound the next time you see one on a newsstand, and I think you will agree.
So bottom line, to me, seems to be that designers such as John, design in ways that they believe work for them. Does the fact that he doesn’t use DBTs as part of his design process mean that he is not a “real” audio engineer? I suspect the answer one gives to that question depends on which side one finds himself of the great divide between the extremist subjectivists and the extremist objectivists – a divide which in my opinion is fed and sustained more by myths and dogma on both sides rather than true scientific research.
> > DBTs are a part of real audio engineering.Me thinks you're kidding yourself, Mike. Perhaps you feel that it should be; however, I doubt that you could point to more than a small handful of audio compaines that use them. Most rely on measurements and cost versus return calculations.
Rod:You're making me look bad. You said in three sentences what it took me numerous paragraphs to say.
Software guys pride themselves in tight, simple code.
Problem is, I still haven't figured out how to bill my clients for all the words I post up on this board. But being the good lawyer that I am, I'm sure working on it.
Not my part of audio engineering. Been there, done that, don't do it anymore.
The smaller size of 4135 make it more acurate in frequency response, but S/N is worse.
I have some curves on 4135,4134,4133 compared. How do I scan them and show them here?
How do I scan them and show them here?Well, assuming you already know how to scan the graphs and scale the image to a reasonable size, the simplest way to display them here is to upload the image to a directory on your web site and then post a message with any relevant text and in the message editing window, enter the URL to point to the image in the "Optional Image URL" slot at the bottom, i.e. http://www.gamutaudio.com/images/whatever.jpg
se
nt
nt
Just kidding, guys. No flames, pretty please.
......now you get to have a cookie, or a Danish....beverage not included.
HowdyDon't forget that the Asylum has the gallery page which can host your images, if you don't have some other picture host already.
Don't forget that the Asylum has the gallery page which can host your images, if you don't have some other picture host already.Yup. I didn't mention it because I knew Ole already had his gamutaudio.com site.
se
HowdyI knew you knew and that Ole knew but who knows who else knew :)
I knew you knew and that Ole knew but who knows who else knewI figured you knew I knew you knew I knew but didn't anticipate my not knowing you knew I didn't know who else knew. :)
se
Hi Ole. I found the B&K catalog. You are using a 1/4 in mike, rather than a 1/2 in mike. My mistake, I understand now. Good response curves in the B&K product data brochure 17-263.
One need all three mics, 4133 for low noise on axis curves, 4135 for high accuracy and above 20kHz tests, and 4134 for reverb.Our ears detect a 0.3dB change within a 1/3 octave. That leaves 6 different sounding steps within each of many 1/3 octaves within the normally accepted +-1 dB band. Different sounds galore!
After I have measured and trimmed a loudspeaker system, I allways check with many different pieces of well known music.
If I do not like the balance of the music, I start all over again with measuring and adjusting, until I hit something better sounding...
Makes sense, I now have all 3 curves in front of me in B&K product data 17-253 paper. I have the transient response of all three mikes, measured by Manger, if you are interested.
That I am looking forward to see.
Ole, it would be easiest and faster to FAX it to you. Just give me a fax #. Later, I can try, like you, to post it on this website. There must be a new way that I don't know much about to do this.
011 45 70202267
Ole, did you get my fax? My fax number is (510) 883-0885. I don't know the USA code, but I'm sure that you do. I have the B&K measurements already, but if you have anything else, I would appreciate it.
I am back from travelling, and I got it, thank you.
Very informative.
I am faxing you Poul Ladegaards measurement done with the AMPspeaker loudspeaker as source.
......he seems to know how to scan images of plots and graphs and post them on AA. In the interest of real science, I'm sure he'd want to help. Nice to see you here, Ole.
In the interest of real science, I'm sure he'd want to help.Real science? BORRRRRRRRINNNNGGGGGGG!
I'm doing it in the interest of getting hooked up with some hot Danish babes. :)
se
Would you like butter or honey with your Danish, sir?
Hey I really feel the same about DBT talk ,but they do have a right to stir the water sometimes .Like a devils advocate I guess even if they are lying to themselves in believeing that everything sounds the same and such.I had read some of your previous post and do not know what you really think about DBT's,but I do know you probably have more experience of DBT's then most all the so-called authourities that think they do that post around combined.
My Q is:
Seeing that some hold Dr.O'tool in such high regard concerning DBT's.Did you ever speak to him concerning Cables.Does he hold the beleif that cables do not make a difference or are all the same?The reason I ask this is It's the glue that holds so many peoples faith in the "No difference in cable Theory"together.They seem to hold him in such high esteem that his is the last word and with out which they would not have a standing argument.
I am not obsessed with the DBT issue and I very rarely even ask a Q about it.I know there are differences and I do not feel I need a DBT test to prove it so I do not post about it.
And don't forget PT is a Lawyer so it is in his nature to debate such matters and others like I said try to play the devils advocate roll and waste space.:)L
...even if they are lying to themselves in believeing that everything sounds the same and such.I thought people who say they heard cable differences were lying to themselves. Glad to see you have the "correct" version of that story.
Seeing that some hold Dr.O'tool in such high regard concerning DBT's.Did you ever speak to him concerning Cables.Does he hold the beleif that cables do not make a difference or are all the same?
That's Dr. Toole, mister. And yes, he is held in high regard concerning DBTs. The reason he is quoted by people like me is that he has put a tremendous amount of effect into blind testing methods and has recognized that sighted testing is flawed (and has written a paper for AES on this subject).
I have third hand knowledge of his opinion on audio wires and I do hold his opinion slightly above others in this matter. Some people assess the value of opinions based on the content of the opinion and some assess based on the credibility of person. I stick mostly with the latter.
Oh, and BTW, he brought in several different speaker wires to his testing lab to make sure that he wasn't missing something by using generic speaker wire, and he wasn't....
Well it seems we disagree and I know the spelling son!I have owned a few sets of them there Canadian speakers that past through the Lab up north.Just not the great typist.I guess the fem-man-aint side in me is not well developed.Former-Marine in me I guess!All I know is that in this here house and in my Tweeked system, not SOTA but close enough for my taste, there is a marked difference in cables which I use to test.Why that is is a matter for the scientist and physicist.
I still do not buy the Validity of DBT's for reasons I have already stated.If you are a follower\disciple of the great man in the North then I hope your happy.I will trust my own ears and pay accordingly thank you.
The only thing I think we might agree on is that at some point the cost to performance ratio is absolutely proposterous,but I am no Warren Buffet either.If I were in the "cost is no object catagory" I might consider $4K cables ,but only if they were to add substantial positive change to my system.I guess I will just have to settle for my flimsy OTA Cable and Tweeked system which to my ears outperforms sytems that go for 5X the price at those Audio Salons I have past through in my travels.
Does not Mark Lev sell highend cables to which the Tool is associated with?Must just be for jewlery or the uneducated dupes that buy High End gear!
All I have in my neighborhood is New England Audio Research and Transparent Audio to go by and only one of those do I hold in high esteem(Southern Maine).Can you guess which one?Hope you and the Tool are happy together in your DBT ventures! [:-)
nt
And don't forget PT is a Lawyer so it is in his nature to debate such matters and others like I said try to play the devils advocate roll and waste space.:)LOn a personal note, I’d like to say that in my profession I get paid to advocate positions for my clients within an adversarial justice system, which, at least in theory, is designed to enable the judge and jury to arrive at just and truthful results.
Here I certainly raise questions of both subjectivists and objectivists. But I challenge you to find one instance here or at AR where I have advocated inconsistent positions on a specific issue, with the possible exception of some issue where I might have changed my mind and clearly indicated that I had in fact changed my mind.
But on the broader and much more important point, isn’t it (or at least shouldn’t it be) also in the nature of scientists to debate? Doesn’t the advancement of scientific knowledge require the critical examination of theories, hypothesis’ and test result? Isn’t the best scientist the one who is willing to intensely examine an issue from as many sides as possible? It seems to me a scientist who doggedly clings to a particular theory or viewpoint simply because he sees himself personally identified with such theory or viewpoint, in most cases serves only to impede the advancement of knowledge. Such scientists, it seems to me, are the ones most likely to take issue with anyone who attempts to examine or question their pet theory or viewpoint.
It seems to me a scientist who doggedly clings to a particular theory or viewpoint simply because he sees himself personally identified with such theory or viewpoint, in most cases serves only to impede the advancement of knowledge. Such scientists, it seems to me, are the ones most likely to take issue with anyone who attempts to examine or question their pet theory or viewpoint.Perhaps we can name this phenomenon a "Curl-ism". :--)
Alan, I've had trouble with you before, but this is amazing to me. YOU sell TWEAKS. You don't have much of a technical background, and virtually nothing that you represent will ever pass a DBT run by one of these folks. Hell, they can't even be sure of absolute polarity or differences in power amps.
You can be sure that wire break-in and AC purification will not make it through their test procedure. You had better find out who your 'fellow travelers' are, because I don't make a dime on tweaks, but you do.
Phil:
Yes,scientist do debate subjects that have to be proven,but in a more civil manner than those I have seen on another BB-AR.Seems they are just stuck in the Dr.The Tool mode ,he has already proven it and there is no sense in making it issue.They will not even test for themselves to see weather he or thier stance is correct concerning the cable theory issue.As for the Debating thing. I was pointing out to JC that you just get involved in the issue alot with those from AR over their insistance on the DBT alot as an opposeing view which to me is a waste of space.You had even stated that yourself I believe(the 7mo. thing).
They are not going to change their viewpoint no matter what might be said because the GREAT MASTER "Dr.The Tool"is a god that should not be challenged.They will not even try another set of wires to see if there is a difference.They attack anyone for even asking advice on the subject. Go to Ratshack and now Walmart is their cry!I'm surprised they don't tout Monster as being great,but then again it's more expensive!
nt
"Seeing that some hold Dr.O'tool in such high regard concerning DBT's. Did you ever speak to him concerning Cables.Does he hold the beleif that cables do not make a difference or are all the sameNo one needs to claim all cables sound the same all the time, the question is how much difference an 'audiophile' cable can make over a standard pro type of the same relative construction. Most people as the Dr. probably just don't care and use what's practical, I guess.
Dr Floyd Toole made a cheap crack about wires at an AES presentation at Dolby Labs, several years ago. Both Brian Cheney and I were sitting in the front row. I had just spoken to him at length about other matters, and he is a Double-blinder all right.
Like a devils advocate I guess even if they are lying to themselves in believeing that everything sounds the same and such.Why are you misrepresenting people's views such as this? I have been one of the most outspoken people interested in exploring the issues of DBTs, and yet I have in excess of $9,000 invested just in cables in my system.
Can you name a single person who has participated in the discussion of DBTs on this board so far who advocates the position "that everything sounds the same and such"?
I have been one of the most outspoken people interested in exploring the issues of DBTs, and yet I have in excess of $9,000 invested just in cables in my system.
Can you name a single person who has participated in the discussion of DBTs on this board so far who advocates the position "that everything sounds the same and such"?
-------------------------
No,but if it gets to the point about DBT's as seen over at AR it shall.That was not meant torwards you or any other person on this BB.
I really do not see the merit in DBT's where people try distinguish differences in an unfamilar enviroment ,with unfamilar equiptment.If I try a particular Cable and don't hear something then change it out and hear an instrament that was not heard before ,is that not a difference.That happend to me today.That I do not need a DBT for.
If you now hear an instrument you did not hear before it means you were not listening closely enough the first time! Of course if you put back the old cable you will still hear that instrument. This kind of claim as proof is why some look for dbt testing. The only proof I use is if my wife in the other room can tell a difference while she is sewing:). And what is your comment about unfamiliar equipment about, is that how all dbts are done?
I do not know about that.It is not really discernable that there is something there with the other cable.I will try to see weather you are right.I am saying that the Engineer tried in vain to mask it I think by cutting it out of the track,but I could be wrong.
The rest of his input is more informative than any of the double-blind nonsense so far mentioned on this website.
If people make a habit of labeling the discussion on this forum as “nonsense” simply because they don’t think those discussions are important or because they don’t comply with their particular beliefs, I fear for the future usefulness of this forum.
On the other hand, if people see statements made on this forum with which they have specific disagreements, and they present those specific disagreements in a reasonable and respectful fashion, maybe this place will turn out to be pretty good.
Phil, if you had completed your scientific education beyond the 'sophomore' year, I doubt that we would be having this discussion.
John:All kinds of responses come to mind, but I refuse to stoop to your level.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: