 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
I’m really hoping this forum doesn’t become dominated with debates over double blind testing. In order to avoid that, I hoping it is possible for us to come to some common agreements on the subject.As I understand it, reduced to its essence, DBT is nothing more than a protocol scientists and engineers commonly use to eliminate bias when attempting to test the ability of human senses to distinguish between two or more different sources of sensory signals or to determine preferences between two or more different sources of sensory signals.
For example, I understand that most wine tasting or chili tasting contests (not exactly pure scientific studies, but used for illustrative purposes) are conducted under blind conditions. This eliminates any possible bias the judges might have resulting from the effects of advertising, brand identification, or personal familiarity with one or more of the chili cooks.
The need for blind testing seems to me to be readily understood and accepted by both wine and chili connoisseurs, so it has always baffled me why there is so much emotional resistance to it in the world of audio.
Having said all that, however, I understand that if one desires to subject two or more different cables to a blind test to determine if they actually produce sonic differences, the issues of protocol and statistical analysis are daunting. Questions of rapid switching, quality of associated equipment, listening conditions, use of trained listeners, number of trials, statistical analysis to be applied to the raw data of results and a number of other issues arise, that I believe would be extremely fruitful to explore in considerable depth on this board.
What little studying I have done of the subject of double blind testing to date, has lead me to conclude that there are no reported results of cable DBTs that adhered to proper protocol and involved a sufficient number of trials to be considered reliable from a scientific viewpoint.
Finally, I think it important that DBTs be viewed in the proper context of what it is we are attempting to prove. Let’s take the following statement as an example: IT IS POSSIBLE FOR TWO DIFFERENT CABLES OF SIMILAR GAUGE AND LENGTH TO PRODUCED DIFFERENT SONIC EFFECTS THAT ARE AUDIBLE WHEN SWITCHED BACK AND FORTH IN A GIVEN SYSTEM.
For proponents of the truthfulness of that statement, if they produce one valid DBT of two different cables with positive results, they have gone quite a ways in establishing the validity of that statement. A few more valid DBTs with positive results and they are getting close to establishing the validity of that statement beyond much reasonable doubt.
On the other hand, if someone were to set out to disprove the truthfulness of that statement, his job would be overwhelming. He would literally have to eliminate every possible combination of cables used in every combination of components imaginable to disprove that statement. Because no matter how many valid DBTs he ran which produced null results, someone could always argue that he just hadn’t tested the right cables in the right system. Accordingly, I believe that with respect to the statement in all caps above, the burden of proof is on the proponents of that statement.
So, in light of all that, I have the following questions relating to the statement I set forth above in all caps that I would like to toss out for your reactions:
1. Do you think the all-caps statement above is a statement that should be subjected to valid scientific testing and verification?
2. If so, do you agree that Double Blind Testing is the only proper scientific protocol that can be used to determine the scientific validity of that statement?
3. Do you agree that the burden of proof lies with the proponents of such statement?
4. Are you aware of any reported double blind tests which have been conducted to test the validity of that statement (regardless of whether such tests produced null or positive results), which you believe were conducted in accordance with proper scientific protocol and with a sufficient number of trials to produce statistically reliable results? If yes, could you point to such reports.
Follow Ups:
Well...The tests that define the basic sensitivity of the ear are DBT's.
They show sensitivity that correlates very well with the minimum sensitivity possible given the physical processes (in specific the noise level of air at the eardrum (NOT at a microphone, it matters)).
Various forms of DBT testing and cognates (there are methods that are effectively blind tests that are not DBT's) have been used pretty much from the inception of audiological and psychoacoutic research, and have provided self-consistant tools for that time.
So...
I think that a PROPERLY EXECUTED DBT can not be argued to miss very much at all. I can't say "nothing", because NOTHING is absolute in science, but I can "not very much" meaning that missing things a few .1ths of a db above audible threshold are very likely to be detected.
There are, of course, poorly executed DBT's as well.
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies
> > There are, of course, poorly executed DBT's as well.Really?
;)
That does come to the core of about 90%, ok, 99.9% of the entire debate. All too often, the debate centers on DBT's validity when in reality it should focus on the specific DBT and it's methodology.
Whatever the future test is going to be it will need to be blind. The ones right now...NOPE! The problem is the tests now are looking for huge differences,,,not unlike comparing two loudspeakers. The psuedoscientists latch on and take that same test to cd players, amplifiers etc. Which don't possess the same degree of difference MEASURABLY and are obviously much harder to differentiate.The number of trials need to go WAY up if the difference is smaller. 6/10 ten times to a 59/100 is statistically significant and FAR more informative than 9/10 or 15/17 etc.
So basically the 10and 17 trials are toilet paper. Then go find the bigger trials...oops there are none.
According to typical DBT ABX tests, Tapes are indistinguishable from CD and LP is indistinguishable from live music. Thus if you support that kind of testing then you may as well buy tapes from here on out...besides they're cheaper.
Validity requires the test to be conducted in the environment for which it was designed. This equipment was designed for long term musical enjoyment not 5 second switching. SOme argue you can just make the test longer. BUT NO YOU CAN't because it goes against short term acoustic memory. but then etc etc etc. and you're in a feed back loop of endless problems.
I saw this in the general forum and part of their conclusion consists of noting problems with DBT AB testing...peer reviewed to boot.
http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548
We don't know enough about the brain yet to fully understand its role on perception. To make gross generalizations either way is wrongheaded. I'm not saying there are differences in any particular piece of gear...but trying to disprove claims on bad tests like magazines and AES journals etc is simply spurious.
I mean crap scientists are still trying to figure out if Red Meat is bad for you, and if aluminum in underarm deoderant will give you brain tumors. Some recent studies on Red Meat are showing benign to all the harmfullness the health nuts have been espousing over the years. But that's another forum.
I hardly know where to start. For instance, you say: ***According to typical DBT ABX tests, Tapes are indistinguishable from CD and LP is indistinguishable from live music. Thus if you support that kind of testing then you may as well buy tapes from here on out...besides they're cheaper.***That statement is totally, abjectly and completely false. Why did you even bother to say it. Over and over and over again, positive results have appeared, even in not very good ABX tests. This is a FACT, one that is well documented in the literature, quotes of which we have all seen already.
And then : ** Validity requires the test to be conducted in the environment for which it was designed. This equipment was designed for long term musical enjoyment not 5 second switching. SOme argue you can just make the test longer. BUT NO YOU CAN't because it goes against short term acoustic memory. but then etc etc etc. and you're in a feed back loop of endless problems.***
Another total, abject misstatement. In a properly executed test, YOU control when you switch.
It is a FACT that it is clear that once YOU LEARN WHAT TO LISTEN FOR, you will learn where to switch, why to switch, and you WILL ANSWER THE TEST TASK QUICKLY. Acoustic memory IS fleeting, but you don't have to listen to 5 second snippets to avoid that. 5 seconds, in any case, is a pure straw man, since acoustic memory so 200 milliseconds or less.
The only issue in switching is that when you WANT to switch, you must be ABLE to do so quickly. There is no requirement that you switch band and forth quickly, that's pure nonsense, and if someone is trying to give you a test where they require it, yes, you should raise your eyebrows a wee bit.
Then, as to your assertion that trials must be longer. What you meant is that there need to be more trials, and you're wrong about that, too.
In short-term tests, where 3/4 repeated twice, in a self-training threshold test, is "success", even not very experienced subjects very quickly learn to hear down to their absolute thresholds as measured in other much more difficult ways. This is another result that's all over the literature in JASA, and it shows that if something is detectable AT ALL, it is nearly always detected in A GOOD TEST.
First, your accusations (I can't call them even pseudo-facts) about what DBT's show are simply false. Then, your conclusions, such as they are, fly directly in the face of massive evidence.
Why did you write what you wrote?
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies
Dear JJJust curious, but would you happen to know as a rough estimate how many tests have been done that meet a PROPER TEST of SAY SS amplifiers?
The only one that seems to get thrown about on other forums is the great 1980 Tandberg amp...which was described to me by a forumer "As inaudible from ALL aother SS amps," which I take to mean all working properly SS amps must in turn sound the same if the Tanberg is the same. Kind of if A=B and B=C then A=C logic.
I personally hope that differences don't exist audibly with most non tube, loudspeaker, turntable gear. Those 300 disc changers are quite accomodating and cheaper than the High end single disc players.
Personally, I hate weasal words being used...like MAY offer, or red meat MAY cause, or there is a POSSIBILITY that...X will cause Y etc.
My psych courses are where my high number of trials came in studying those claiming Extra Sensory Perception. Since other forumers linked believing in audible differences among SS amps and CD players to believing in ESP then I used the ESP high trial requirement. In a proper test where far more variables can be accounted for then the trials could be drastically cut.
Where the frustration sets in is when you see magazines like the Sensible Sound claim that an RCA is indistinguishable from cd players coosting thousands in their home brew DBT. And I say OK, but let me try it...WHAT were the other cd players so that I may listen? But they don't list them. And That is puzzling.
And then why would RCA not use it as a HUGE advertising campaign. RCA $89.00 model X is as good, AUDIBLY, as Linn Sondek CD12(you know the ridiculous 20+k CD player). I mean if I were RCA management I would be all over it.
I think a lot of people would rather put the money into speakers - I know I would...but there is a lot of misinformation I presume is out there. Yet access to AES documents etc is costly and generally hard to find for average Joe consumer? Why?
Frustrated in Vancouver
I'm not saying there are differences in any particular piece of gear...but trying to disprove claims on bad tests like magazines and AES journals etc is simply spurious.I certainly agree. There is a point in your statement that to me is personally important. I believe that a person who raises questions regarding the current state of the art in DBTs should not automatically be labeled as making unsubsubstantiated claims about cable differences and likened to people who believe in alien abductions, creationism and astrology. Likewise, a person who questions the lack of reliability in sighted auditions because of bias shouldn't be labeled as pushing a point of view that "wire is wire is wire."
I think your point regarding number of trials is very important, and seems to me to be often overlooked by those who point uncritically to reported cable and component DBTs which have supposedly produced null results.
Here's a post where I set out the material I've gathered on the issue of number of trials:
http://www.audioasylum.com/members/mgeneral/messages/887.html
Also see:http://www.audioasylum.com/members/mgeneral/messages/397.html
For an interesting discussion on objectivity.
All of which leads me to tentative conclude that home brew blind tests may be pratically worthless and that it is somewhat unlikely that anyone soon will be conducting reliable DBTs on cables.
Is a collection of straw men, and little more.
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies
jj:I'm not sure what article you are referring to. If its the Leventhal JAES article, it may be full of straw men; I just haven't seen any convincing rebuttal to his arguments and I don't know enough to see where he is wrong.
Sorry.He seems to be of the "abx/dbt never found a difference" bunch. Even if you take less that great tests from less than refereed places, they have.
Makes his position tough. He attempted a bit of a whipsaw as well, if I recall.
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies
I have not heard of a Whipsaw?As for the differences of Tape VS CD that was largely because several years ago in BC Canada TDK ran one of those booths where if you could tell the difference between their Chrome II tape, recorded from the cd versus the cd in a blind test you would win some sort of prize. Which of course didn't happen. TDK of course has a conflict of interest, so did the UHF magazine (sort of DBT) that indicated the same kind of thing.
I had asked others on other forums to provide support in AES papers etc, that a recorded tape of cd could be distinguished and came up blanks. What I did get provided were several documents that had nothing to do with Tapes. I was provided with a live performance versus LP from the 30s or something where nobody could distinguish the difference.
Like I replied above...I am getting information fromall the wrong places I presume...but if there is incontributable evidence then RCA, APEX, Yorx etc and all the other "so called" low end companies should be marketing the hell out of the TRUTH and save us from buying non value added jewelry. Besides the "so called" lower end products LOOK WAY BETTER. Pioneer has cool blue lights and some stuff has rosewood side panels and piano blaque lacquer facing on their receivers. Compare that to the butt ugly Brystons with tacky looking handles and the Bryston wins hands down.
I'm perfectly willing to admit that when I listened to the two and thought the Bryston had tightened up the bass response dramatically, that I was under a placaebo effect of some sort. Luckily, I have yet to spend that kind of money on equipment - so I can stop before I get caught in a delusion...or was the Bryston better?
Even more frustrated.
Marketing demonstrations ARE NOT GENERALLY WELL RUN TESTS.I'm not sure what your gripes with the JAES is. Could you be a bit more specific?
As to DBT's, I suggest that you visit JASA or a psychometrics journal.
The AES is generally (although not always) pretty good, but is is (and must remain, to be useful) on the applied end of audio science.
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies
1. Yes, I think you are correct about your statement. A DBT will not reveal the cause of differences nor is the purpose to determine perferences. All that is required is to determine a sonic difference and this would lead to an investigation into the physical properties of the cable which are responsible for the differences. The preference of one cable sound over another is not relevent to any of this scientific procedure.2. Again, I do believe that a DBT is the only satisfactory method for determining that two similar cables do sound different. However, the procedure may not necessarily be an ABX type of test but it would have to be a test where only a persons hearing is doing the subjective evaluation. Maybe models from the medical community using placebos and control groups, etc. would be helpful.
3. Yes.
4. No.
Similarly what would you conclude if our instruments show no difference? Would this convince subjectivists that cables do not differ. or should it convince subjectivists that cables do not differ? Only if the scientist subjectivist believes the measurements are valid is the data intersubjectively transmissible and likely to be persuasive. With so many convince that the ears tell a different story, this is not likely to happen.DBT of wines will only work if it is related to the proof of an individual's tasting of the recommended wine. If the results of DBT led to a ranking that tasters using the results found wrong, DBT would not continue on wine. Why don't we have DBT of automobiles? It should be possible to obscure the identity of the cars, but I think most people would say this is unnecessary given the measurements that are taken, such as time to 60mph, headroom, cornering g force, etc. Every one accepts these as aspects of car performance that they have found valid and which highly correlate with personal experience.
Norm:You raise some very interesting questions. Unfortunately, I don't feel competent to discuss all of the ins and outs, and nuances, of scientifically blind testing to respond to your comparisons between audio DBTs and cars and wine tasting, nothwithstanding the fact that I, myself, used wine tasting as an analagous situation. The best I can say is that it seems to me the questions you are raising relating to wine and cars go primarily to the issue of preferance, whereas I'm suggesting that DBTs, at least at this point, be limited to testing claims of those of us who report hearing differences between cables. In other words, it seems to me that at this point DBTs first need to be used to demonstate that it is possible that actual sonic differences can, at least in one circumstance, be detected.
I'm not convinced that has ever been established under valid scientific test conditions. On the other side of the coin, I'm not convinced that cable DBTs which some objectiists refer to as having produced null results were run under valid scientific protocol and subjected to statistical analysis that would properly establish a reasonable confidence level with respect to the raw data results of such tests.
Finally, I would say that if the electrical measurement show no difference that would be strong support for the "naysayer" position. My guess is that some electrical differences will be shown (probably already have been shown), but that will still leave both sides free to carry on the battle unabatted, because the "yeasayers" will argue that this is proof differences exist, and the "naysayers" will argue (properly, in my opinion) that until those differences can be demonstrated, to a reasonable scientific certainty, to be responsible for actual, audible sonic differences, those measurements are largely irrelevant to the question at hand - that being is it possible for two cables of similar gauge and length to produce actual, audible sonic differences when switched in and out of a system.
I think a lot of folks aren't even interested in the answer. It's a "been there, done that" proposition. My own epiphany after 30 years of messing about with this stuff came when, just for grins, I swapped a pair of "coaxial" style interconnects with a pair of Goertz Micropurl interconnects that connect my CD player to my integrated amp. I had bought the Micropurls new for my phono setup (they're not expensive) and I thought, just for the hell of it, let's swap these in for the equally non-expensive DH Labs interconnects I've been using with the CD player. BOOM! Immediate and obvious difference. Stereo image much more "focused" high frequency transients (cymbals on a drum kit) much less "spitty" and more cleanly rendered. I did this over three successive evenings, with differente CDs. Always the same result. Scientifically valid? No, no DBT. Am I satisfied there's a difference? Absolutely. Did I hear differences between my Rat Shack interconnects and the DH Labs (of similar design) when I bought the DH Labs? Nope, not that I could be sure of.From reading your post and the many others that, in varying degrees advance the "wire is wire is wire" point of view (and advocate increased use of DBT's to "prove" it), it seems that where everyone starts to go off track is that their knowledge of electricity is limited to what they learned in junior high school science class when we studied direct current electricity. The relevant properties were voltage, amperage and resistance; and we learned that a thicker wire carried more amperage than a thin one.
You can recognize these people around here: they're the ones that talk about the "gauge" of the wire and the length as the relevant factors -- since those relate to total DC resistance and amperage.
Unfortunately, audio is AC, so there are other wire properties that are relevant: inductance and capacitance. These are not a function of gauge, but a function of the cable's design, insulating materials and so on. So, the short answer is that two cables of the same length and gauge can have vastly different capacitances and inductances; so, for purposes of passing AC, they are not the same.
In my example, the DH Labs cable is probably fairly high inductance and low capacitance. (Since were talking interconnects with miniscule currents; differences in gauge aren't relevant.) By constrast, the Goertz cable is made of two thin ribbons twisted together and separated by a thin insulator. It is relatively high capacitance and very low inductance. So, in a relevant sense, it is very different from the DH labs cable, even though if all you were doing was passing a 100 milliamp current of 1 volt DC, the two interconnects would be "the same."
Of course, the input and output circuits of components are not of similar design. So when you combine those differences with the differences among interconnects in terms of relevant electrical properties (not just DC resistance), it should come as no surprise that they sound different. Notice I have not said a word about more esoteric concepts like "skin effect," "self-inductance," "time delay" and so on.
The big question is: can a particular set of cable parameters be identified as consistently sounding better across a variety of components? The Goertz people claim that a low "characteristic impedence" is it; but "characteristic impedence" is an AC property that is always expressed at a particular frequency; and the Goertz people don't tell us what frequency it is at which characteristic impedence should be low. In practice, what that translates to, in their cables, is cables that are low inductance and high capacitance. Another cable with a similar configuration (obviously designed not to infringe on Goertz's patents) is the Analysis Plus oval cable. I don't think AP is quite as forthcoming with their characteristic impedence specs; but I could be mistaken.
Whether or not that low characteristic impedence is the holy grail of cables is the secret of cable makers, including our "own" Mr. Crump. . . .
From reading your post and the many others that, in varying degrees advance the "wire is wire is wire" point of view (and advocate increased use of DBT's to "prove" it),Just for the record, there is nothing in my post that even remotely suggests that I am advancing the "wire is wire is wire" point of view. Moreover if you search the archives here under my current “Phil Tower” moniker and my prior "pctower" moniker and all of the archives at AR under “pctower”, you will not find a single post of mine that even comes close to advancing such a point of view. I have been using after-market cables for over 20 years, back to the very first MITs, Monster, Audioquest and FMS Blues. In selecting my current cables I auditioned (sighted) well over two dozen different brands of cables (including Goertz Micropurl interconnects) over a two year period before selecting my current collection of cables.
I’m curious if you checked out my system before writing your post. It absolutely amazes me that the simple act of raising a scientific issue regarding objective verification of actual sonic differences between and among different cables leads people to automatically label the person raising the issue as a proponent of the “wire is wire is wire” point of view.
The context of your original DBT post at the top of this thread was about wires. Now, you tell me that you recognize -- and pay for -- the difference between wires. Why, then, the interest in DBTs for wires, since all that a DBT will ever establish is the existence of a difference -- something that you already acknowledge exists?I could personally understand someone's interest (because I share it) in the use of DBTs to verify the efficacy of some other tweaks, such as isolation platforms for solid-state electronics, "resonance control devices," demagnetizers for aluminum CDs, etc.
But I have to say, that it appears to me that you're admitting that you launched a thread asking a question that you already know the answer to: Why do people resist using DBTs to establish that differences between wires exist?
The answer is that people resist that for the same reason they would resist conducting a DBT to prove that the sun rises in the East in the morning: it would merely establish the truth of a widely held proposition.
The context of your original DBT post at the top of this thread was about wires. Now, you tell me that you recognize -- and pay for -- the difference between wires. Why, then, the interest in DBTs for wires, since all that a DBT will ever establish is the existence of a difference -- something that you already acknowledge exists?All I have told you is that I pay for after-market cables. I haven't told you I recognize anything at the level of scientific verification.
I pay for after-market cables because the ones I use produced, what I perceived to be, an improvement in my system, and the perceived improvement was consistent and significant enough that I was willing to pay for it - Steve Eddy refers to that as the "hedonistic" approach to audio - it's purely subjective. But the fact that I make those personal choices based on what brings me pleasure, says nothing about what I believe, from a pure dispassionate scientific view point, as to actual audible, sonic differences. When I choose to buy after-market cables I'm not concerned about the science of the issue or whether my perceptions of improvement are real or imagined. I care only about one selfish thing, and that is my pleasure level.
The fact that I choose cables that way should not preclude me from approaching the scientific discussion of cables from a dispassionate viewpoint of simply wanting to get to the truth in a scientifically valid manner.
In order to provide further elaboration on this, please refer to this other post of mine:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/230.html
I believe that the questions I'm raising in this forum can stand on their own, without any reference to how I make my own personal decisions, or what I do behind closed doors in the secrecy of my own sound room. The reason I referred you to my system is simply to reinforce my statement that I have never attempted to advance the "wire is wire is wire" view point. All I'm attempting to advance at this forum is a dispassionate search for the truth.
From a purely scientific view point, which I understand is the orientation of this forum, the only position I take with regard to the question of whether cables of similar gauge and length can be responsible for actual sonic difference is that, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever demonstrated under valid, control conditions that at least one human being can detect sonic differences when two different cables of similar gauge and length are switched in and out of a system. If you or others have information to the contrary, I am totally open to valid scientific evidence on either side of the question.
"As I understand it, reduced to its essence, DBT is nothing more than a protocol scientists and engineers commonly use to eliminate bias when attempting to test the ability of human senses to distinguish between two or more different sources of sensory signals or to determine preferences between two or more different sources of sensory signals."Yes.
"The need for blind testing seems to me to be readily understood and accepted by both wine and chili connoisseurs, so it has always baffled me why there is so much emotional resistance to it in the world of audio."
This becomes apparent later, but the short answer may be the "not invented here" syndrome.
"Having said all that, however, I understand that if one desires to subject two or more different cables to a blind test to determine if they actually produce sonic differences, the issues of protocol and statistical analysis are daunting. "
Agreed, the devil is in the details. Documentation is probably the most difficult mand time consuming part of testing. Yet it is the most critical if one expects their results to be repeatable.
"What little studying I have done of the subject of double blind testing to date, has lead me to conclude that there are no reported results of cable DBTs that adhered to proper protocol and involved a sufficient number of trials to be considered reliable from a scientific viewpoint."
I believe this gets back to "not invented here" - seems everyone wants to use their own methodology. And I believe that it is because it gives the results they want, not necessarily accurate results. Can I prove it? No, but there are those who have made some fantastic claims that no one else has been able to repeat because of the methodology the claimant used.
Your Questions:
1) Arny Kreuger has done some work in this area. He has shown that as a system, you can get differing results by swapping different components around. As far as I know, this work is still theoretical. The work only centers on amplifier/speaker cable/speakers. (This obviously muddies the DBT waters for speaker cables)
2) Yes.
3) Yes.
1. It would be nice to resolve this issue so yes.2. No I don't. It can be used to identify if there is a diference that is all. It cannot determine why. We would need some kind of cable test protocol set up to determine why through measurement.
3. I don't understand what the big deal is about burden of proof for an individual. If an individual makes a statement that he believes that x sounds better in his system thats all that is required.
If we are talking a manufacturer that is making blatant claims about the superiority of his wire to all else then he should be able to back it up with some data. We as consumers should demand that data and not make it easy for a manufacturer to make such claims.
4. Nope
five years ago.....That was simplistic as well.....The point is do components and/or wires sound different? Rather than beat around the bush trying to find the cream of the crap through mercury wetted relays and poor set-ups let us try to measure the differences objectively in an attempt to advance audio rather than retard it.....I am sick and tired of "measurement error" excuses being tagged onto those trying to make advancements in knowledge towards the "ideal" components or wires.....
If guys like you are going to turn this forum into a place where you regularly post condescending cheap shots such as comparing reasonable questions raised to "simplistic" issues you discussed in a class 35 years ago, I personally will have no interest in participating.I appreciate your expertise and experience. I do not appreciate the attitude conveyed in your last post. As far as I'm concerned, you are not God and I do not need to be spoken down to.
Phil, DBT will not advance anything......It will tell you which component sounds better is all, something that is better measured with a meter if we could afford one sensitive enough.....DBT is merely a beauty contest, but one that would pit Ruth Buzzi against Bette Middler.....Hawksford, Duncan and others have sought to advance the body of knowledge and all I hear is "measurement error" as you can see below in Escallier's post.....The test was flawed, not that I bothered to run the test the way it should be run, IHHO, and got different results, but that the test was flawed......Gee what an advancement in the body of knowledge regarding human hearing......When you folks decide that components might sound different let me know as I'll be around....
"Phil, DBT will not advance anything......It will tell you which component sounds better is all, something that is better measured with a meter if we could afford one sensitive enough.....DBT is merely a beauty contest, but one that would pit Ruth Buzzi against Bette Middler"Sorry, but I believe you have it backwards. I gave an example of that in your posting a result of -120dB, when in fact, you'll find that artifact to be 40dB below your playback equipment distortion levels. So where is the beauty contest then? Is it in being able to say you can measure something that is -120dBc, or whether or not there is an audible difference? Test equipment already is, and has been for some time, far better than the human ear in measuring differences that are not at all audible. You can't throw out the DBT, it is the only way you'll ever advance the art by correlating AUDIBLE differences with measured differences and not necessarily at the singular component level, either. Otherwise you have no foundation upon which to base your results.
> > Test equipment already is, and has been for some time, far better than the human ear in measuring differences that are not at all audible> >And what is that supposed to mean? Think about what you have said. If it's not audible, then why do you want to measure it in the context of listening to music. What you don't measure, but the ear hears are FM distortions, and a myriad of relationships that when even subtly skewed tell the brain something is wrong. Why don't persons such as yourself acknowledge that you don't have the first clue as to what is audibly important to the listening experience. Instead, you have the audacity to ASSUME that your understanding of the human hearing mechanism is complete, and that you can measure all parameters that are important - How haughty can one be? Why don't you admit that what you can measure simply isn't important to the listening experience, and what I can hear, you can't measure.
You understand the listeing experience and physics better than Richard C. Hyser did??? A number of years back Richard designed a black box that could be inserted between a preamp and amp. Once inserted into the system it distorted terribly the music going through it - even the most uneducated ear could tell that! And yet no measurements could be obtained from the output of the black box to explain why the output was so different from the input.
And while you are at it, ask your machine what kind of strings Steve Howe uses on "Mood for a Day".
Marty
This is a most interesting claim. If you would be kind enough to tell us where we could get a copy of this article, I, and I am sure many others would appreciate it.
Quite frankly I am most curious on some of your assertions concening this black box.
"A number of years back...."What's a number of years back? 10, 20, 30??
"Instead, you have the audacity to ASSUME that your understanding of the human hearing mechanism is complete"
You're putting words into my mouth.
"and what I can hear, you can't measure."
Really. I can come up with my own box that will produce an anomaly that can be easily measured and you can't hear.
If the musical experience were limited to listening to static sine waves or even two frequency intermodulated tones, then I would agree with the Jit Meister - and the old McIntosh clinics where they presented you with a mighty impressive looking THD chart generated by their high buck SOTA test gear. Yessiree, we can measure tones right on down to the basement! For those individuals who enjoy listening to test tones, then the audible results would likely correlate with the measurements. Fine.Music lovers, on the other hand, listen to a very different environment. The only constant here is change. This world consists of a highly complex, harmonically-rich, and dynamic environment of REAL music. Of all the engineers here in the Asylum, I find Jim Johnson's (aka jj) comments the most compelling. He acknowledges that all standard measurements are essentially useless. It's not so much that they are wrong - just irrelevant. He states that indeed all that can be heard CAN be measured using tests. It's just that such relevant tests would be extremely complex and are NOT the ones touted here as being authoritative.
rw
Which is why I disagree with rcrump about the validity of DBTs. You have to figure out how to corelate what we hear, with what we can measure if you are to get realiable repeatable results. DBT's are also important in dcided what is important to measure, and what isn't."Yessiree, we can measure tones right on down to the basement! For those individuals who enjoy listening to test tones, then the audible results would likely correlate with the measurements. Fine."
You also have to understand that the simpler a test the better(Good ol' worn out KISS). The trick coming up with the right surrogate test signal to achieve the desired results. It is quite possible to make a test signal so complex that a room full of Cray computers can't properly analyse it. So what good is that?
It is quite possible to make a test signal so complex that a room full of Cray computers can't properly analyse it. So what good is that?Halleluiah! This is what we lay people call music , the reproduction of which is the raison d'etre for the high fidelity component. Easily quantifiable tests based on simple tones makes for easy test results but establishes useless proof. That is unless of course you spent your twenty grand on equipment for listening to test tones.
rw
"That is unless of course you spent your twenty grand on equipment for listening to test tones."Well, that is what test equipment does best.However, music is a series of harmonically related tones. The difficulty that test equipment has with it is that it is random in it's nature.
Test equipment is great for evaluating test tones, not music. It can quantify meaningful differences only for those who choose to listen to test tones.For those of us who listen to "a series of harmonically related tones" , however, the results from the test gear does not yet correlate with audible results.
rw
Well, sounds like a dead issue then. Maybe someone else can come up with something worth talking about here.
talk and not enough action toward advancing the knowledge base...
I've apparently been operating under the misunderstand for some time that the purpose of audio websites was to talk. Unfortunately, as a lay person, talk is about all I have to contribute. I certainly would not want my posts to further impede the progress of knowledge in the audio world (sarcasm clearly intended).The problem, from my perspective, is that the audio world seems largely divided into two camps, naysayers and yeasayers, and the attitude of each camp is you are either for us or against us – no in between allowed. I see that problem reflected both here and over at AR.
Unfortunately, that presents some problems for those of us who think we see problems with both camp. My experience and personal impression is that when a question is raised regarding a possible problem with some aspect to the views of a particular side, the person raising the issue is immediately seen as the enemy and is responded to accordingly. That is, the response is either one of lecturing the questioner with the full and complete dogma of the particular side to which the question was directed, or, attempting to discredit the questioner. Seldom does the specific question ever get addressed or dealt with in any reasonable manner, at least in my experience.
As I see, it there are many issues of disagreement in the audio world that seem like they could be discussed in rational, technical terms – issues such as sonic differences between cables and components, SACD vs. DVD-A vs. redbook, tubes vs. solid state, digital vs. analog, planar speakers vs. cone speakers vs. horn speakers, moving magnet cartridges vs. moving coil cartridges, linear tracking arms vs. pivoted arms, vacuum tables vs. non-vacuum tables, use of equalizers, value of electronic room correction, up-sampling vs. non up-sampling, triodes vs. pentodes, the value and limitations of DBTs, proper protocol and statistical analysis for DBTs, switching power supplies vs. standard supplies vs. battery supplies, value of power line conditioners, value of vibration isolation devices, single CD players vs. transport-DAC separates, quantum theory vs. classic theory, and many others I’m sure I have not thought of.
Some of these issues don’t carry a lot of emotional baggage, but many seem to, and one better be prepared to choose sides and hope that he can shout louder and longer than those on the other side of the issue.
Perhaps my view on this is way off. I hope so. Otherwise this forum will simply be nothing more than a mudslinging arena.
Come get me if you all resolve to seek the advancement of audio via finer measurements.....
It's the camp of get everyone good and upset at you.Come get me if you all resolve to seek the advancement of audio via finer measurements.....
No, Bob, you stay here. You have much more to contribute than I do. I think I had better stick with practicing law for the time being.
Phil, you are doing fine....I'll just get in trouble if I stay over here as I know what works for me and what I want and it isn't going to be forthcoming here.....Folks here are more interested in beauty contests more than ideal measured design parameters....
Why not start your own thread on testing. So far all you've done is jump into the middle of DBT type discussions.....
I will not allow this forum to degrade into personal issues.Your post is the type of thing that starts things on a downhill ride. If you haven't anything to add to the discussion, please refrain.
Thanks
Excuse me? It was a legitimate suggestion to what he was seeking. Why don't you go read what I've been subjected to.
I will and I did. Thus far, I've seen a little of that, but I've also noticed that you've had a tendency to respond in kind which will eventually escalate without a doubt. My objective is to address that quickly and I will attempt to do it without bias either way.You can't control how others act, but you can avoid being a party to the problem. That's all I'm asking.
You'r reading WAY too much into my reply.
what I meant by I'm gone in my above post?.....
Yeah, maybe you shouldn't be here.
I am sick and tired of "measurement error" excuses being tagged onto those trying to make advancements in knowledge towards the "ideal" components or wires.....I don't have a clue as to what you mean by that. I didn't say anything about "measurement error". I don't even know what relevance that has to the issue I'm raising.
Moreover, I'm not attacking or trying to tag anything onto anyone. I'm trying to get some clarity, if for no one else, than me regarding application of a common scientific protocol to audio.
Moreover, how was I beating around the bush? My all-cap question is really just another way of stating your question: "The point is do components and/or wires sound different?"
Why does this all have to be so contentious and carry so much emotional energy? I think I laid out the issue in a reasonable way and asked reasonable questions. Is there any reason why you weren't willing to answer those questions as long as you took the time to respond to my post?
Measuring the electronic characteristics is fine and may provide guidance to you as a designer. However, unless and until the audibility of any measured differences is established scientifically the debate will rage on.
As I have tried to state clearly, as far as I'm concerned, the approach anyone wants to take to design is clearly his business, just as my approach to buying is mine. But neither is involved in my question, which is directed to scientific examination of a question that has been probably the most debated issue in high-end audio since its inception. A debate I should mention that has been characterized primarily by polarization and name calling. I'm simply trying to encourage some reasonable, dispassionate discussion of the subject. As far as I can see, your response doesn't help much in that area.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
