|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.255.211.134
In Reply to: RE: Power cord realities and illusions posted by tomservo on June 18, 2010 at 17:39:55
I have never been in a comparison test of power cords...
You have no experience in the topic at hand.
What changed was the lights on the switcher...
More than likely, the switcher shared a common ground where you were comparing all the cables to all the cables regardless of the position or you had some spectacular pops when switching was done.
rw
Follow Ups:
“You have no experience in the topic at hand.”
In that I have never done this test with power cords, no
If you mean am I familiar with human nature or hearing and designing electronics for audio or space shuttle use and it’s emi/rfi requirements, or if my current job for the last 15 years designing loudspeakers requires an in depth understanding and measurement of the same things and also requires critical listening, then Yes.
Relevant to this, I have been involved with a number of such tests of both speaker cables and amplifiers, at least with amplifiers, there were some differences one could still reliably hear “without knowing” .
Until such a test is done with power cables, it is highly possible they would be subject to the same wishful expectations internal to ones ears vs external, like most of the cable testers were.
“More than likely, the switcher shared a common ground where you were comparing all the cables to all the cables regardless of the position or you had some spectacular pops when switching was done.”
Not at all, the lights were small, battery powered, connected to a dedicated set of the relay contacts, there was no sound other than the contactor / relay switching.
It really was exactly as I described, after being "clear", essentially no one could identify the special cables they brought vs zip cord after the indicators were switched off.
Fwiw, all one needs are a pair of DPDT relays with 25 Amp contacts and appropriate power supply and on/off toggle switch and 4 or 6 sets of speaker terminals or AC receptacles, you can be fancy and add the lights with a pair of 3PDT relays (less common as surplus). Make similar unit wired with twisted pair, in a metal case with RCA connectors and you can compare audio cables too.
With a program like ARTA, you can measure “it” to see what it looks like relative to cable etc.
"Do you have experience in the topic at hand?"
Have you ever tried listening with out prior knowledge and depended entirely on your ears?
That is what blind testing is .
...connected to a dedicated set of the relay contacts, there was no sound other than the contactor / relay switching.
your control process that supports your assumption that the switch box has zero crosstalk which would affect the results.
Make similar unit wired with twisted pair, in a metal case with RCA connectors and you can compare audio cables too.
Frank Van Alstine has already done that and determined that you are indeed comparing all cables to all cables. Once again, what is your control?
Have you ever tried listening with out prior knowledge and depended entirely on your ears?
Yes. An entirely without using untested devices never used in normal listening which are merely presumed to have no effect. I will be most interested in your control procedure.
rw
“your control process that supports your assumption that the switch box has zero crosstalk which would affect the results.”
Like I said one can measure what effect the switcher has / examine it via measurement. At low impedance's like speaker cables, cross talk is essentially non-existent (too small to hear / measure).
“Frank Van Alstine has already done that and determined that you are indeed comparing all cables to all cables. Once again, what is your control?”
Not sure how he would have gotten credit for such an old idea but the strength of it is you are comparing one item to another without knowing which is which.
When as happened often that people went from “hearing it clearly” to not at all when the only change was the indicators working or not, that strongly suggests they were all lying to begin with (golden ear confidence) or what they heard was not connected to the airborne / audible part of the experience.
Without having tried this, I am not sure how certain you can be that it isn’t a real effect, as it applies to all other areas of sensory input testing including hearing tests..
You ask several times what is your control? It sounds like you might be familiar with scientific testing yet in informal subjective listening cable proponent’s use, none whatsoever exists.
How did you accomplish “An entirely without using untested devices never used in normal listening which are merely presumed to have no effect.” and still be able to compare A vs B rapidly and without any prior knowledge as is required?
At the very crudest level of testing one can have a person switch back and forth but as in other testing, there is a strong possibility of the case being telegraphed, hence electronic switching with relays.
If you are concerned that the switch is audible, go back and forth having someone else manually switch the cables to bypass / remove it and see.
Remember the basis of a part of hifi marketing is the same as many other commercial products, they don't always have to work to have a devoted following.
If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't have magic knobs, magic stones and myriad of other subjective only products to separate a person from his coins. Testing without prior knowledge is one of the only ways to tell if the effect is internal or external to your eardrums, weather or not your its your ears or brain that "hears" something.
The first step is to acknowledge how your brain / ears work together.
Like I said one can measure...
How close were the capacitance and inductance values with and without the switch between the various cables?
Not sure how he would have gotten credit for such an old idea...
You're missing the point. Due to the necessity of having a common ground, you are in fact comparing the sum of all the separate cable's characteristics for each and every selection. In other words, the switch is NOT comparing one cable to another. It is comparing all the cables together to all the cables together. Worthless.
...yet in informal subjective listening cable proponent’s use, none whatsoever exists.
Proctored SBTs work pretty well and eliminate the continually unsubstantiated - and refuted *theory* that the boxes involve no relevant changes to the test.
If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't have magic knobs, magic stones ...
There really is no need to introduce straw men arguments to one on cables. While you have zero experience comparing power cables, many others have. A number of studios and award winning recording engineers find they offer value. Guys who have compared PCs . Perhaps you might try that some day.
The first step is to acknowledge how your brain / ears work together.
The second step is to avoid speculation and when a test uses some added component, one must first prove that the added component is not the cause of the (lack of) variance.
rw
“How close were the capacitance and inductance values with and without the switch between the various cables?”As I recall, the total capacitance was equal to about 3-4 inches of the least capacitive cable or about 60K ohms capacitive reactance at 20KHz paralleled with a 5 ohm speaker in parallel with a ~.05 ohm source, while the series L was somewhat less in proportion. In other simpler words, the cables were typically several orders of magnitude larger so far as changes they imparted via electrical properties.
“You're missing the point. Due to the necessity of having a common ground, you are in fact comparing the sum of all the separate cable's characteristics for each and every selection. In other words, the switch is NOT comparing one cable to another. It is comparing all the cables together to all the cables together. Worthless.”
Worthless is easy to say but....
Your argument would hold some weight if that were actually the case, using a dpdt relay eliminates the need to leave the ground side in the circuit. As I described, one can even go in stereo with a 4pdt relay and switch both channels, both conductors.“There really is no need to introduce straw men arguments to one on cables. While you have zero experience comparing power cables, many others have. A number of studios and award winning recording engineers find they offer value. Guys who have compared PCs. Perhaps you might try that some day.”
It is no straw man but the understanding of human perception and electronics that argues for this kind of test. The same fallibility is why such things as the Kinoki foot pad had many many supporters even though the gunk it was supposed to remove via your foot, was actually contained within the pad and did nothing for you other than what you imagined.
Further, if you look at the largest selling brands in nearly any area (including audio) you will find evidence that a dollar spent marketing the impression of science, creating an image produces more sales than a dollar spent on R&D. What you can be lead to believe is the key of much performance in marketing unless you measure.The fact is what one believes or thinks is such a powerful factor that drug development was stymied until testing without prior knowledge was devised.
How many areas where a serious answer is needed, is the test taker allowed to know the answers before and during the test?While audio is not a life and death subject, it doesn’t mean that in that one area alone, the workings of the sensory system follows a different set of rules than everywhere else in known science, it doesn't.
Rather, one need only admit there is even ONE product sold based on that fallibility and suggestion to open the door to considering others might exist, even if in a hifi marketing sacred area like wire..
Once skeptical, it is no surprise to recognize that the people who refuse to consider such testing as potentially valid, generally line up in the way the mfr’s who sell same would prefer / promote.
Conversely, you will find few if any people supporting that, selling anything based on this head effect.
So, why would that be? (that the people who support blind testing generally do not sell products or products which depend on that belief?).
"Theory is great"
Well i suppose it is, depending on the depth of understanding, it has allowed our electronically enhanced world to be deliberately designed, for the design process to become a science instead of alchemy.
Edits: 06/19/10
I wasn't referring to the box by itself. That is one of the fallacies of testing. Unsupported assumptions become part of the test. I was referring to measuring a cable by itself and at the other end of the box with the other cables connected. Perfect, crosstalk free switches? No control was done on the systematic changes introduced by the testing arrangement.
It is no straw man...
to introduce bogus topics like magic rocks to somehow bolster an unsubstantiated process? Sorry, I disagree.
...how would this not be a potential when comparing power cords with knowledge?
There is potential with that along with poor, assumption based testing methodologies. Roger Russell assumes that there is nothing more important to the sound quality of a speaker wire working in a system than merely a five percent variation in impedance. Brad Meyer assumes that his ADC/DAC Redbook bypass SACD test is all that is important for detecting the capabilities of high resolution digital recordings. They don't know what they don't know - yet preach the outcome as gospel. Is that what you support?
rw
“I wasn't referring to the box by itself. That is one of the fallacies of testing. Unsupported assumptions become part of the test. I was referring to measuring a cable by itself and at the other end of the box with the other cables connected. Perfect, crosstalk free switches? No control was done on the systematic changes introduced by the testing arrangement.”
First understand what I am saying;
That in engineering, no one claims wires do nothing, but do claim that what wires do is measurable and follows existing theory and the sum of the effect can be examined by comparing the signals at either end.
Those electrical properties causing the change can be measured like in all other areas of electronics by examining the cable open circuit and closed at the far end with a network analyzer is the norm and that this understanding was key in making our telephone systems work.
That the polarized simplistic situation as presented in modern hifi lore, where there are two camps, the meter readers and golden ears, is one THEY constructed to help sell product.
“to introduce bogus topics like magic rocks to somehow bolster an unsubstantiated process? Sorry, I disagree.”
Perhaps you have not tried to address folklore with science or research before, while the demonstrations using exotic speaker wire were the ones I attended, the idea of saying speaker cables have very very small audible differences, would be more heretical than something more can relate to, like magic rocks, magic knobs, pointy feet and so on.
“They don't know what they don't know - yet preach the outcome as gospel. Is that what you support?”
Nope, you get the results the test gives, the test at best can only answer the question it asked. I don’t write in magazines, I am not selling anything to the home market, I have done R&D in electronics and acoustics most of my life and aside from here, don’t promote “my view” of how it is.
My success has been based in finding new ways to do things, often based on measured results so I deliberately don’t pay much attention to what others do.
My specialty now is in horn loaded speaker systems and passive crossovers but used to be in transducer design.. I have couple patents covering RF electromagnetic levitation, acoustic levitation and a number of new types of loudspeaker transducers horns and speaker systems too.
Background noises;
http://www.google.com/patents?q=Tom+Danley&btnG=Search+Patents
While its true I have nothing to do with hifi marketing other than listening to and building speakers being a hobby / living much of my life, I do have some relevant background in the principals involved and have nothing to gain by trying to “trick you”, nothing you want for sale.
Can that be said for the promoters of the other side of the argument?
Best,
Tom
~!
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
Nope, you get the results the test gives...
Most folks don't appreciate that fact. Certainly not the two individuals I cited. Nor dialtones like RBNG.
Those electrical properties causing the change can be measured like in all other areas of electronics by examining the cable open circuit and closed at the far end with a network analyzer.
I'm not saying controls cannot be conducted. In practice, however, they simple aren't. Period. Not by anyone. Why would you need to test a researcher's arrogant assumption? You continue to dodge the issue that the *test* you gave as evidence is likewise control free.
Can that be said for the promoters of the other side of the argument?
When it is a cable manufacturer or dealer, no. When it is another speaker designer, amplifier designer, recording engineer, or audio reviewer for which there is no inherent predisposition, then the answer is yes. Why would Carl Marchisotto, Luke Manley, Jud Barber, Roger West, et. al. or any other non-cable manufacturer use something other than *perfect* zip cord?
I agree that with virtually all components, the level of improvement at the high end follows rapidly diminishing returns. I've never been "blown away" by cables. The added level of realism the better ones afford has put a smile on my face on many an occasion though. :)
rw
Tom has shot down you're contentions about common grounds, but you don't give up. Most significantly, you haven't shown controlled testing to show that power cords (and some other things) make an audible difference in a sensible application.
You are reduced to saying that, maybe, with more controls in a different test, audible differences *might* show up. But this no one denies, not RBNG, not me, not jj. What is singularly lacking is positive results.
All you can appeal is worthless anecdotal evidence.
"Why would Carl Marchisotto, Luke Manley, Jud Barber, Roger West, et. al. or any other non-cable manufacturer use something other than *perfect* zip cord?"
It's up to them and other cable proponents to tell us why. I can certainly think of all sorts of possible reasons--biased perceptions, wishful thinking, etc. If you complain about blind tests that have been done, well, sighted tests are worthless for establishing audible differences where the differences are near threshold, though they are a way of forming preferences.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
There will never be anything approaching any kind of semi-universal certainty or consistency with high-end artisan products. Just because some manufacturer uses electrical engineering methodology to achieve a certain "sound," - does not mean that their goal is to either define or achieve something approaching "accuracy;" that will be agreed upon by all or many.Hearing and listening is interpretation, - (and that does not mean arbitrary beliefs), - the goal is often "sounds good:" - or possibly too, an accurate interpretation of a recorded event, as the designer hears it.
All of this stuff falls within the realm of a very uncertain interpretation, and experience. To try to go beyond experience, and subject different components to some kind of provable standard, almost borders on the ridiculous as there are no universally acceptable standards: (and they are certainly not provable). We certainly can measure the resistance of any given set of cables. But whether or not different cables make any given sound system sound different, - is subject to a whole host of different circumstances, including the people who are listening: so much so that we just need to experience them.
This is an entirely different world, (interpreting an artistic event), than manufacturing an effective drug, or determining a car's acceleration: the latter of which can be easily tested and proven.
I've experienced Home Depot lamp cord, Speltz Anti-Cables, Audience AU24 and Cardas cables in my system. They all affected how the system sounded, and they all made the system sound different. (If I would've connected these cables to my Denon all-in-one system in the bedroom; they would've been different still, and I bet that their differences would've been less pronounced, if at all).
Denigrating experience, in a paradigm that has goals of interpreting an artistic event, is not going to help anyone acquire value. In a world where both perceptions and goals vary greatly, the best we can do to determine value is to acquire as many experiences as we can, and then try to determine the degree of differences, (if any), bring in the other factors besides sound quality as we perceive it, - then make the call.
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
Edits: 06/21/10 06/22/10
All of the above is true if all you're trying to reach is a purely subjective evaluation. But if what you're trying to determine is whether or not something is audible when the listener expectations are disengaged, or how faithfully a component reproduces the signal it receives, you've entered a world where objective observation and measurement is critical and interpretation is irrelevant, even counter-productive.
Of course we listen subjectively, and that's all that matters in the end. If you believe that a meter of copper, with no filtering capacity or characteristics, sandwiched between miles of copper in the grid system and many feet of it in your listening system, can change the quality of your music, you WILL hear it. Enjoy.
P
But the "goal" can either be "accuracy" or "beauty," and since accuracy is not defined, all choices become reduced to subjective, artistic ones.
Do you use Vishay or Hovland resistors? Do you use Hovland capacitors, or pour your own?
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
But accuracy IS defined. How faithful is the output signal to the source signal? The more faithful, the more accurate. It's that simple. Now you may prefer a different reflection of the recording. You may even find it is more natural, but that's where it gets subjective, and complicated. Whatever they are, seek your preferences and enjoy them. But I know my own very well: I have, for decades, preferred the less dramatic, the less colorful, the more faithful. What many call dry, boring, clinical, I find to be a clear window into the recording. Sometimes it looks upon something pretty ugly. At its best, It reveals something quite beautiful, something I want as unclouded by the subjectivist's interpretation as possible
That's what I seek.
P
care to take a shot?
""I have, for decades, preferred the less dramatic, the less colorful, the more faithful. What many call dry, boring, clinical, I find to be a clear window into the recording.""
""I have""
I would think that a good definition would want to take any one individual's subjective preferences out of the mix.
Wouldn't we have to define accuracy to be something akin to THD distortion rate, or some kind of distortion rate across a detectable bandwidth? And if so, how would we define "detectable" and "distortion."
And, this is not to mention the stuff, (and it's probably considerable), that I'm missing.
""something I want as unclouded by the subjectivist's interpretation as possible""
As you wrote above, - that's just about as "subjective" as one can get: and a great support of my argument.
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
The problem is you created my definition of accurate from the part of my (short) post in which I was expressing my personal opinion. The part in which I was defining accurate shouldn't have been hard to find, it was right up top and clearly identified itself:"How faithful is the output signal to the source signal? The more faithful, the more accurate."
Is this really simple? It's not terribly complicated. You want to measure the accuracy of a preamp? Measure the analog signal that is being fed to it by the DAC, across every reasonable, measurable parameter you can, then measure the signal coming out of the preamp by the same metrics. The variance is the inaccuracy. This used to be SOP for manufacturers and reviewers. Are there things we cannot yet measure that may also be audible? Maybe. Measurement is not perfect. It's just a whole lot better than deciding it is meaningless, tossing it off, and declaring that everything is subjective out of one side of our mouths while swearing gear that is deliberately colored is more natural out of the other. I'm not accusing you personally of doing that, by the way, but it happens every day in the audiophile community.
p
Edits: 06/29/10
again,
It relies on some kind of undefined, and subjective vagary. A "good" definition is something that reaches the "essence" of that thing, to the exclusion of all other things.
For example, a chair is an object that is designed for the act of sitting. This excludes any other item/object/concept to that specific thing.
Something like "good sound" cannot be defined in a universal sense, only in individual sense. (The essence of your definition was "good sound" not accuracy)"
No two or two hundred people will ever agree on the "accuracy" of a particular recorded trumpet, (for example), because your definition of accuracy relies on the basis of your hearing/hearing-interpretation of a comparison and/or your unique perception of that trumpet. Which will be different from the player of that trumpet, or of a listener who has had one of their eardrums blown out in that scuba diving accident.
""Is this really simple?""
No, it's incredibly difficult.
""It's not terribly complicated.""
Yes it is incredibly complicated, - In my opinion, you're trying to make it simpler: but it really is not.
""Measurement is not perfect""
That is most correct. And, sometimes what we choose to measure does not necessarily best test the conclusions that we draw from it.
""Measure the analog signal that is being fed to it by the DAC, across every reasonable, measurable parameter you can, then measure the signal coming out of the preamp by the same metrics.""
Of course we'd have to get specific. And.... of course, there would be some measurements that will definitely be different, yet a majority of people could possibly say that they they hear and measure no difference. But that would not mean that the DAC would or the pre-amp would be accurate. You could have a very "inaccurate" sounding DAC and a very inaccurate sounding pre-amp measure very similarly.
""This used to be SOP for manufacturers and reviewers""
Based on the number of reviews that I've read, and I certainly have less experience than some: there has never been, nor will there ever be, a standard SOP amongst reviewers or manufacturers. I know several manufacturers who build as they go, and only write up their schematics after they are done: basically, listening and testing as they go; not knowing the final outcome until they get there.
""Measurement is not perfect.""
I'll say. I never said or implied such. Neither is listening.
""declaring that everything is subjective""
Everything isn't subjective, just the goals and final character, and the means to get there. Whether or not the component in question functions is not subjective.
""I'm not accusing you personally of doing that, by the way, but it happens every day in the audiophile community.""
I understand: but that is also a bit hyperbolic. I mean, most audiophiles are just trying to enjoy the music that they love and feel that they improve that listening experience by getting better equipment that enhances the beauty of the artistic event. This could mean that they purposely are selecting equipment to mitigate the sound of scratchy violins. Two, or three, or four, people might listen to another system next door and say that the former is less "accurate," - yet prefer the system that makes the violins less sibilant.
Yes, maybe these people can be convinced that what most pleases them is not accuracy: but it doesn't reduce their value: they just have different values.
That is the problem, even if we could define accuracy to everyone's satisfaction, - you would still have people seeking out inaccuracy: choosing their view of beauty instead.
You would rather own a system that encompasses your version of accuracy instead of someone's version of beauty: that's great for you. But please don't try to say that your vague and undefined version of accuracy is "better" or "objective" (as it's quite subjective), than someone elses.
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
"You would rather own a system that encompasses your version of accuracy instead of someone's version of beauty: that's great for you. But please don't try to say that your vague and undefined version of accuracy is "better" or "objective" (as it's quite subjective), than someone elses."
Let's just say we are using words like transparency and faithful very differently. I'm talking about a signal exiting the component that is measurably unchanged from the one entering it. And I understand that measurement is imperfect, but I know it is still useful, because my ears tell me so. I can add a component to my signal chain that measures very well and the effect it has is extremely subtle, if audible at all. By contrast, I have put other components, the designs of which are known to color the sound, are even intended to color the sound (Often these components are not measured; their designers and proponents don't believe in measurement, imagine that) and the effect IS audible.
Whether or not you like that color is another question, of course. But transparency can be measured and it can be heard. It's not an effect. It is the lack of one.
p
You can "measure" and hear what comes out of the analog outs of a GAMUT CDP and I would say that perhaps FEW people would call that accurate. So, - if I measure and listen to what comes out of a Gamut, and into a ARC preamp, and it measures "relatively" the same coming out of the ARC pre-amp it just means that the ARC may be accurate, - not the GAMUT. We can then add a Meitner CDP to the mix and few would probably say that the GAMUT would be more accurate. Or would we? I bet you that the manufacturers of Gamut will tell you that their player is accurate? Who's "right" and who is "wrong."
Yet, how would we "prove" with a definition to exclude all others that the Meitner is more accurate? Could we do it?
""But transparency can be measured and it can be heard.""
No it cannot. Prove it. Not until it's defined. And until then, one person's interpretation of transparency is another's SCRATCHY.
""By contrast, I have put other components, the designs of which are known to color the sound, are even intended to color the sound""
Are you sure about that? Are you sure that it's just not the manufacturer's interpretation of accuracy? Who's vague definition of transparency and accuracy is more right? How do you know that the measurements that the manufacturer is using aren't better or worse than yours or someone elses? Or their perception of the sound?
"even intended to color the sound"
That's at best, a guess on your part. Can you name and quote a manufacturer who "intends" to make inaccurate or colored gear?
What if they're building a CDP player and their reference amplifiers, speakers, cables, are colored very dark, (the equipment that they're using to voice their CDP), would they be producing a CDP that might be considered bright in another system?
""(Often these components are not measured; their designers and proponents don't believe in measurement, imagine that"
Could you be making another assumption here? Isn't that rather insulting of you to insinuate such? Maybe they use different measurements, maybe they feel that some of those measurements, or scopes used, do not accurately reflect what they or their customers here. Maybe their testing equipment isn't capable of measuring certain elements of particular components that are in the product: (capacitors and resistors bleed).
Transparency and accuracy are ABSOLUTELY NOT objective terms.
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
Most likely you can use a test disk and measure the difference between players, if there is such a big difference as you claim. Then one could say which one was right and which one was wrong, since there is a standard that determines what a CD player is ideally supposed to do with a given disk. So you are left in the same situation as the preamp: if you don't get the correct signal then the player isn't transparent. If you start messing around with the high frequencies then that's a different matter, as CDPs are now being deliberately built to counteract the limitations of early analog to digital converters. But this shouldn't affect the low bass. However, there is still a definition of "right" and Ayre, for example, accommodates this through his "measure" switch position. If you have to reach a decision using music then you can still determine transparency, but like your example of the preamp you will have to work with an ADC paired up to a DAC. And if you mix brands, you will not necessarily get consistent results. This is the same as it has always been with tape machines.
Nothing wrong with selecting components that aren't transparent or accurate if they work together and make your recordings enjoyable. However if you are making recordings for others to play on their equipment then this will be perilous.
While some manufacturers who produce "colored" sound do so unintentionally (and it may even be debatable that any coloration is the result of their products) there are undoubtedly others who deliberately create a colored "house sound" to obtain market differentiation.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I would assert that given the dramatic disparity in sound between CD players that there certainly never has been, nor will there ever be a standard......
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
Not so dramatic as the disparity in position you take on the subject with certain members of the esteemed Boston Audio Society. :-)
I don't happen to believe it is possible to get transparency with the 44/16 format. This leaves room for various compromises over what should be discarded and what should be left. This is not such a problem as the digital resolution increases, which is a very good reason for avoiding RBCD wherever possible.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I don't happen to believe it is possible to get transparency with the 44/16 format.
optimizes phase response over extended HF response. Hence, it measures 0.25 db down at 20 kHz using balanced connections and 1 db single ended. Some might consider that "warm" sounding.
rw
Just kidding, from someone who has no interest in classical music, - SACD or hi-rez simply is not available. But that's another story for another day.
AND, - not to be overly obnoxious, - there IS a big disparity between redbook players. If you don't have that experience, - then I don't want to be obnoxious, (again), but I'd humbly suggest that you seek out more players.
I've had an Arcam FMJ, an Audio Aero, a NAD, an AYRE, and an APL all playing redbook in and out of my system and the differences were pretty big. There's a lot of testimony out there too, corroborating big differences in CDPs.
Plus having a player on hand that is great with both redbook and SACD; IME, there are more than a few great redbook recordings out there that rival in sound quality to SACDs. And a few SACD recordings that are WORSE sounding than their redbook counterparts, Jazz at the Pawnshop, the Simple Minds, and the Pixies SACDs are most notable here. There are also some excellent Reference Recordings in redbook that are excellent and rival their SACD counterparts. In players like Meitner, Ayre, Esoteric, Audio Aero, and APL, - the redbook sections are so good that they are very close to many SACDs. YMMV
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
I don't know the GAMUT, but of course you have to begin with the source. Measure the source. Listen to the source. insert a component - your preamp - into the signal chain. Judge the effect, with ears, and instruments. The component that you can't hear, inserted in an existing signal chain, is transparent. That's what the term means in this context, and the process described above is done by guys running studios all the time. Is it absolutely objective? Of course not. The measurements, to the extent that you believe in them, come pretty close. They can be verified by rigorous, statistically significant blind listening tests, though they seldom are.
Regarding builders who deliberately color the signal, there have been many DACs and preamps advertised to make digital audio sound "more analog." Other audiophile gear adds "warmth," or is "more musical." More "musical" than what? Other manufacturers have talked about how their products have more "PRaT." What do you think these folks are talking about? If their objective was the simple, unaltered reproduction of the recording, if that was even the audiophile's objective, the language would be very different.
I'm not sure if you're being argumentative or simply naive. Can I, or anyone, "prove" that one piece of gear more accurately re-produces the signal it is given than another (ie: is more transparent)? It can only be proven to those who believe in measurement and/or blind listening tests. And of course many audiophiles, unsatisfied with their subjectivity, usually do not.
P
I can go back and say it again..... but.... back to work.
The Gamut player is a source.
It sounds much different than an Arcam, it measures much different than an Arcam. You can measure a pre-amp, you can listen to a pre-amp. It can be the same going in and coming out. The SOURCES are so different that you'll get two different sets of measurements coming out of your very "accurate" pre-amp. Then, we an always bring a very in-accurate turntable into the mix.
""Regarding builders who deliberately color the signal, there have been many DACs and preamps advertised to make digital audio sound "more analog." Other audiophile gear adds "warmth," or is "more musical." More "musical" than what? Other manufacturers have talked about how their products have more "PRaT." What do you think these folks are talking about? If their objective was the simple, unaltered reproduction of the recording, if that was even the audiophile's objective, the language would be very different.""
Right, there is no standard. Some manufacturers call these "warmed up" players more analog-like and more accurate. Others say that analog-like is a paltry ambition and that is not accurate.
It just goes to show that there is no definition of accurate, and it's certainly not universally recognized and not objective. Besides, almost all manufacturers try to assert that their product is more accurate: it is the reviewers and consumers who use terms like warmed-up.
""I'm not sure if you're being argumentative or simply naive.""
I'm not sure if you're being argumentative or simply naive. Wait a minute, - you just said that.... :-)
""Can I, or anyone, "prove" that one piece of gear more accurately re-produces the signal it is given than another (ie: is more transparent)?""
If it was a well defined, objective fact: then you would be able to both adequately define "accurate" and you would be able to prove that something was more accurate than something else. You'd be able to make a clear, provable statement along the same lines as: "A Manley Stingray is an tubed integrated amplifier."
""It can only be proven to those who believe in measurement and/or blind listening tests.""
No, an objective fact can be proven: the earth revolves around the sun is an objective fact. The very act of listening by definition eliminates objectivity. This is why no manufacturer would ever be permitted to claim: "I have built the most accurate source, no other source is as accurate," - and have it be universally recognized as such. Halcro states that they have made an amplifier with the lowest amount of distortion: this is probably provable given allowances for those particular measurements that they have made: but they do not claim, nor do people universally support the notion that it is the most accurate: even if the term accurate had an agreed upon definition.
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
...and I answered it. "Of course you have to begin with the source." Did this not concede that sources will vary to you? Of course if you had the access and resources, you could measure the recording on the system upon which it was mastered, compare that against the output of the source and its transparency would be as demonstrable as any other electronic component in the signal chain.
"The SOURCES are so different that you'll get two different sets of measurements coming out of your very "accurate" pre-amp."
Duh. What defines the accuracy or transparency of the components in the chain after the source is their ability to leave the source unaltered. Of course they'll measure differently with different sources. That's like saying all measurement is meaningless because the numbers change when you change recordings.
"No, an objective fact can be proven: the earth revolves around the sun is an objective fact."
Cool. Prove to me that the earth revolves around the sun.
"The very act of listening by definition eliminates objectivity."
The very act of listening for subjective judgement eliminates objectivity. The act of conducting blind, rigorously controlled AB/X listening tests through enough trials to reach a statistically significant sample yields pretty objective results. Proof? I guess that depends on what you call proof, and I know it is very popular not to believe in such tests in audiophile circles. But done properly, it will give you as much solid data as you're likely to come up with to support that earth revolving around the sun thing. We can argue about this all night and neither of us will yield. May as well agree to disagree.
P
You're right in that we can go on and on about this.
This is also not a new fight: people have been fighting about this here a lot.
Let me leave you with this to consider though: If we/the audiophile community had agreed upon objective definitions of accuracy: the fine folks at LAMM and the fine folks at Halcro would not be both asserting that their respective amps are more accurate than the other. One of them asserts a lower rate of THD, the other questions that relevancy, and asserts that it doesn't matter as much as harmonic feedback. Indeed, listeners fall on each side of this argument asserting one is more accurate than another.
How do we resolve this? We resolve this by saying that one can never be UNIVERSALLY accepted as being more accurate and we give up. We say that each manufacturer and listener must decide for themselves what is more accurate, and if not accurate, then some other SUBJECTIVE term.
As human beings, our hearing varies from person to person. For it is not only our ears that hear, but it is our brains that interpret what we hear. And, what is "accurate" for an older person may have changed from another younger person, or perhaps even in the same person when she was younger.
I bet you that if you and I sat down over a couple of beers and listened to the same music and the same gear and ran a comparison between Halcro an LAMM, we might come to similar conclusions listening to a certain recording of Stradivarius violin. But, perhaps a player of that violin might come along and disagree. When we hear a normal, rock, recording, it is at least 5 generations removed from when it was played in the control room. I can tell you that when my band was recorded, the lead bass guitar sounded different in the room, then different on the rough mixes, then different on the final mixes, then different being cut to lacquer, then on the final vinyl, then different on the final CD.
Cripes, this happens all of the time, another subjective variance removing us from objectivity accuracy. Have you ever heard a small system, in a small room, (with stand-mount speakers), ever deliver the real bass weight of the lower register of an acoustic piano?
My point in saying this is in order to have objectivity, you must have universal acceptance: otherwise it's subjective. Objectivity is like theoretical math. 2+2=4 always, anyway: it's either right, or it's not, and we all agree. "Natural," - is always subjective.
From All Experts:
"" Generally, demonstration is limited by a set of assumptions, and also by acceptance of what given observations mean. If you therefore reject either or both of these, it's doubtful that whatever I provide will be found satisfactory.
First, one must assume that: Earth is a planet and not some confection of the mind, or "virtual entity" within we all find ourselves. In other words, there exists an objective and independent reality.
Also, one must assume that whatever I can tell you that I can see, or observe, you can also. If you are blind, for example, even partially, this assumption fails and what I provide is useless.
Third, we must assume that the language I am referencing is also understood by you to mean the same thing. Else, all bets are off.
In terms of the observations, it must be clear that what I describe is reasonable to you, and moreoever can be confirmed and duplicated where you are. It must also be at least approximately true, that the meaning of the observations as I interpret them, is also shared by you.
If any of these breaks down, then what I tender will be dismissed.
That out of the way, let's get to specifics. If the Earth revolves around the Sun - and is not static in space - then it must be true that over the course of a year say, we observe differences - for example in:
i) the stars that appear at the same time in the night sky
ii) the altitude and azimuth (position with respect to the horizon's N, S points) of the Sun.
The first is easily verified, say over the course of obseving the night sky at the same time (say, 8 p.m. local time) each night. You will therefore see a procession of different stars, objects as time goes by.
This is the first indicator that Earth must be moving through space and not stationary.
A further observation to reinforce this is *revolution* and not merely linear displacement is obtained by repeating said observations *year after year* and making notes of the objects seen.
In the same 6-month period, therefore, you ought to see the same objects in the night sky at the same time.
This implies repetitive motion, and hence that the Earth is not merely linearly moving in space, but returning time and again to the same relative position in space (e.g. in it s orbit)
Second, the position, altitude of the Sun. If you do the same thing for the Sun, you will note its changing positions both in altitude - at specific calendar dates - and its rising (and setting) positions along the horizon.
Thus, it ought to be obvious - again, say over a 6-month period of observation - that these are changing.
Again, if you repeat them *year after year* you will see the exact same positions duplicated, suggesting that the Earth is returning to its same position in space relative to the Sun. (The seasons, of course, are also indicators of this)
Of course, you can refine measurements - say of the Sun's changing altitude - through the use of an instrument like an astrolabe (which can easily be made using a lead bob attached to a string, and affixed to a wooden or cardboard protractor).
Hopefully, this will help you to see how we know the Earth revolves around the Sun - even though I do not claim it is "proof". ""
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
Yeah, I've logged a few hours in the studio myself, I know exactly what you're talking about, and we're talking about two different things. I usually don't have this much trouble getting a point across, but I'll just assume it's a communications failure on my part, because what I'm getting at is not at all abstract, and you keep replying with abstractions. Enjoy the music.P
Edits: 06/29/10
.
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
a
.
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
Your concept of "accurate" posits a distance relationship: closer for more accurate, further for less accurate. This is likely to be the case for perceptions that correspond to a single physical dimension. However, in the case of audio components there are numerous separate physical "dimensions" which apply. It will be generally impossible to find a consistent ordering, since each listener will place different emphasis on each dimension and one listener may even vary his emphasis as a function of the recordings being played. In some cases, preferences won't even be ordered linearly by a single listener. A may be preferred over B, B over C and C over A.
Of course if you compare two components that have widely different quality levels then the superior component will dominate in all categories in which case a preference will be clear.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Sorry Tony, I'm probably being dense, but I didn't follow that at all. "Distance relationship?"
P
If you found my explanation difficult, then I think I made my point. The question of transparency is not simple. :-)
This concerns preference theory. I see there is quite a bit of literature among the marketing theorists on this subject, but most of the interesting looking articles are not worth the $30 that seem to be the cost to read them. A simple example of how objects that have multiple attributes are difficult to rank in a consistent order is the game of "rock, scissors, paper". Which one of these is better? It depends on how you compare them, the basis of the game. The important point to understand is that preferences (as manifest in specific choices, be they answers to questionnaires or purchase decisions) are not just a property of the objects being compared. They are also affected by how the decisions are approached, the order of presentation, etc.
If a collection of audio components differed solely along a single technical dimension, e.g. had the same frequency response and distortion properties but differed only in the level of white noise, then it would be easy for subjects to rank these components according to transparency, and the results would likely be consistent (for most subjects) with the measured results. With multiple dimensions as actually exist with imperfect audio components, the situation is much more complex, even potentially paradoxical.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
It's not the concepts I'm struggling with, Tony, it's the language. It's not at all clear what you're referring to as "distance relationship." What is meant by "physical dimensions" is no more clear, nor is "consistent ordering." At least they're not clear to me.
P
So as to make things concrete, I will talk about objective measurements, although I believe that subjective perceptions are ultimately more important. I will also confine myself to electronics, indeed only mono electronics, just to keep things simple. Even simpler, a line level amplifier.
One can characterize the performance of this device in three basic ways, noise, frequency response, and distortion. Oversimplifying, these separate concepts do not interact. Noise corresponds to output when there is no input. Frequency response corresponds to differences between input and output that are proportional to the input (linear), and distortion corresponds to differences between input and output that are not linear. All three of these categories can be further broken down since the effects will depend on frequency. You can not characterize the distortion of this amplifier by a single number. You will need a table of dozens of numbers. You find this in over simplified detail on a spec sheet or in more detail in the "measurement" section of articles in magazines. Now if you are comparing a few amplifiers and you are working with a few dimensions, say two to keep it very simple, you can plot the measurements on a piece of graph paper. At the origin you would have the "perfect" amplifier. I think most would agree that such a device, were it to exist, would be what you called "transparent". You could plot other devices as points on the paper. Now if you took a ruler you could measure the distance on the paper between two points and it would provide a measure of similarity. If you measured the distance between the point corresponding to the device and the origin you would have a "distance" that characterized how transparent the device was.
Here you see already the difficulty. If there is only a single dimension all the devices will plot on a line and it will be clear which device is more transparent than the other. But as soon as you have two axis a question of scale comes up. If you expand one axis and contract the other the ruler will place more emphasis on the attributes associated with the first axis and less on the attributes associated with the second axis. There is no obvious way to compare a given amount of noise vs. a roll-off of high frequencies above 10 kHz, for example.
Consistent ordering is simple. If I rank devices and always come up with the same order of preference, no matter what tests I perform, my ordering is consistent. This is possible, at least for some audiophiles who aren't suffering from audiophile neurvosa and if a small range of reference recordings are used for comparison. If many recordings are used or if many listeners get to express their preferences, it is unlikely that consistent results will be observed.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony I agree that it is not as simple as a few measurements at a few points along the path. I agree that those snapshots, taken for convenience and often abused, don't tell the whole story. I even agree that subjective listening is the most important measurement. So let's just say it's all subjective. My active rig in which the amplifiers, with great, though limited, imperfect numbers and loads of excess headroom are matched by design to the individual drivers in my speakers, is no more accurate than a turntable into a SET tube amp into speakers with an efficiency rating in the high 80s. Trust me, there are plenty who would say that such a thing. Never mind the wow, the flutter, the compression, the clipping, the very measurable and high harmonic distortion. If the lover of that vinyl/valve system thinks its best, it is.
And my little active monitors are better than the most elaborate custom midfield system, because I think they are. The very essence of subjectivism. Measurements don't tell the whole story, so they don't matter. Let's throw them out. Let's abandon the goal of accurate reproduction because accuracy is in the ear of the beholder. If it sounds good it is good.
Cool. Close down the discussion boards, brother. We have absolutely nothing left to discuss.
P
Enjoy the Chaos, that's what an artisan, interpreting the artistic experience is all about. More choices aren't bad, (although it may all seem overwhelming), follow your own path and enjoy the diversity.
Why does everything need to be so black and white?
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
It doesn't have to be black and white; it really CAN'T be black and white. If the guy with the vinyl/valve rig tells me he LIKES it better, cool. Enjoy the music. THAT'S subjective. If he tells me it IS better, more natural, more musical or some other poetry devised to imply superiority (an objective value), I'm going to tell him he's wrong, by my ears AND by the numbers, and discussion will ensue.That's why we call them discussion boards.
P
Edits: 06/29/10
then those terms are very subjective....
"Natural," "musical," "transparent" are subjective terms.
Those flowery terms are not defining, nor are they implying (universal) superiority, - they are terms that describe an individual's preference.
Individual preferences are outside objectivity, - always.
You can say that the Manley Stingray is a tubed, integrated, amplifier. That is an objective fact.
You can also say that the Manley Stingray presents an absolutely lifelike transparency and accurate reflection of the recording: well, you're stating a subjective interpretation at that point. Wherein one can plug in an even better Manley NeoClassic amplifier and someone else will assert that it is lovely sounding. Or, someone could plug in a pair Audio Physic speakers and warm up the whole sound of the whole system, making it "less wonderful"
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
"You can also say that the Manley Stingray presents an absolutely lifelike transparency and accurate reflection of the recording: well, you're stating a subjective interpretation at that point."
-- We'll have to disagree on that point. "accurate reflection of the recording" is not a subjective interpretation in my view, it is saying that the Manley Stingray puts out exactly what goes into it, with gain. And as I just told you in the other thread, that is also exactly what "transparency" means in this context. "Absolutely lifelike?" You got me there. That one is pretty subjective, and extremely vague.
Say it is lovely, warm, smooth..use any purely subjective term you choose that implies no more than that you like the sound, and I'll just congratulate you on enjoying the music. The problem, as I see it, is when audiophile manufacturers, and audiophiles, use quasi objective language in the description of purely subjective attributes. And it is the rule, not the exception. Is it terribly serious? Nope. But it gives us something to talk about.
P
> Say it is lovely, warm, smooth..use any purely subjective term you choose that implies no more than that you like the sound, and I'll just congratulate you on enjoying the music <
I'm with you. Unfortunately, when those comments are used, the replies are usually of the "You simply love the sound of distortion and prefer colored, inaccurate components" or something to that effect. Then the responses are "I prefer the lifelike sound of real instruments in real space rather then incomplete measurements"... and the arguments that have been going on for decades continue. :)
Sordidman and Tony seem to think that accuracy and transparency are moving targets. Perhaps that's the essence of the schism between so-called subjectivists and objectivists.
Nice thread!
Cheers,
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
"I'm with you. Unfortunately, when those comments are used, the replies are usually of the "You simply love the sound of distortion and prefer colored, inaccurate components" or something to that effect. "
Yes, an unconstructive response, and one I've used more than once, I'm afraid. Unfortunately it is often the correct answer, even though "enjoy the music" works much better. If someone loves their out-dated technology, there is really no talking them out of it and no point in trying.
P
> Unfortunately it is often the correct answer, <
That's the whole point; no one knows if it's truly correct at the same time they're using it.
> If someone loves their out-dated technology, there is really no talking them out of it and no point in trying. <
True. And if someone loves their new-and-not-improved technology, the same goes. Again, the problem is the frame of reference i.e the subjectivity of it all. The bottom line is that whatever sounds the most "real" or "accurate" or "lifelike" to the listener is what IS the most lifelike. Unfortunately, chasing accuracy to music means I would have had to be there when it was recorded. Aside from a couple of occasions, I haven't had that pleasure. In the end, it's all subjective.
Even in its heyday as something similar to a science, back when reviewers who used measurement instruments were considered valuable contributors to the hobby, not fringe fanatics, hifi didn't chase the accuracy you're talking about. Studio monitoring systems don't even chase that accuracy directly. Microphones don't hear the way people do, so it is compromised before it even gets to the monitoring system. The accuracy you CAN chase, however, is fidelity to the source (high fidelity ring a bell? Not the excellent John Cusack movie...). That's a goal well worth chasing, a goal we'll have to count on the pros to pursue, because audiophiles, their vendors and their press have mostly abandoned it to subjectivism.
P
> That's a goal well worth chasing, a goal we'll have to count on the pros to pursue <
Unfortunately, they'll never know when and if they get there. It'll simply be yet another belief system. Best of luck to the pros.
I don't believe that accuracy is a moving target. It is an unattainable target, although an excellent goal. If it appears moving, it is because each time we attempt to corral it we catch only a partial glimpse of the situation, limited by the particular circumstances of our observations, be they subjective or objective.
Too many times have I compared components (or alternate versions of a recording) and concluded they sounded "the same" only to discover upon further listening that there was a distinct and repeatable difference. The same thing happens with purely objective measurements. With a new test or new test equipment two devices that had previously measured identically can measure differently.
There is a deep truth behind all of this and it goes far beyond the reproduction of music through the use of audio technology.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
agree with this assessment....FWIW
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
nt
Nothing to argue with, there, Tony. Data gathering is imperfect. But there is a sizeable gap between what you're saying and the usual, "it's all subjective, you can't prove anything" argument which, upon further discussion, is too often revealed to mean "you can't demonstrate anything, you can't show valid evidence of anything, there is nothing in the world of science and engineering to show that any component might be more accurate than the ones I've chosen." This argument, made by manufacturers, reviewers and users, has resulted in the abandonment of that excellent goal to a sloppy subjectivism that broadly imagines, and then believes, a plethora of audiophile absurdities, many much more widely-adopted than shakti stones and black CD discs.
Proof is evasive. Evolution is a "theory." That doesn't make my mother a monkey. And it doesn't make clipping valves, just to use one common example, more "natural" than a well-designed solid state amp with more headroom than the load will ever require. I don't need proof to understand that is nonsense.
P
more meaningless words "well designed" another moving target with no real meaning....
"Evolution is a "theory." That doesn't make my mother a monkey"
Of course not: do you think that those are the only two choices? Do you think that Evolution theory is the best explanation that we have available?
Does it have a high probability of being "accurate?" Is it closer to the "truth"
Do you need to have a higher authority than your own listening comparisons to determine what is more accurate?
Whenever there are undefined, "moving targets" like "well designed," and "good sound," and "accurate" sound; how do you resolve a potential conflict or dispute when someone asserts something to be accurate?
Take the LAMM vs Halcro example. Are you saying that because the LAMM has tubes/valves it is less accurate? Are you saying that the LAMM is poorly designed?
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
Not sure what you're referring to. Is there a classic battle of subjectivity between the Gods LAMM and Halcro? I'm blissfully unaware.
P
in this thread.
Don't know if you're worn out by it all. But I did want to thank you for helping me to think about a number of things, as well as bringing some pretty good arguments and reason.
Thanks,
As I mentioned, I used the Halcro/LAMM stuff as an example. As I read it, and I don't know if you agree, - but your definition of ACCURACY has to do with correspondence: like the correspondence theory of truth. (We listen to the trumpet live, then we listen to the trumpet through the audio playback system. The closer the audio system sounds to the real trumpet, the more accurate it is. As I see it, this can never, ever, be objective because human hearing is poor, varies (sometimes widely) from person to person, depends on other things like training, moods, level of distraction, and is by it's very nature, inaccurate).
It's like having several witnesses at a traffic accident each telling a slightly different story through slight variances in their perceptions: (like getting the color of one of the cars slightly wrong because they saw the accident from inside Starbucks).
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
Thanks, but sorry, that's your definition of accuracy, not mine. Mine is much simpler and much more quantifiable. Let's say the component you're evaluating is an amplifier. Take a comprehensive set of measurements of the signal going into the amplifier and a comprehensive set of measurements of the signal coming out of the amplifier. The amplifier that doesn't change the signal at all is absolutely transparent. Pretty rare, I'd guess. What's not all that rare is the one that doesn't change the signal audibly, when compared to the reference amp, assuming the reference amp itself is designed for high fidelity to the source, not a "house sound," and is of very high quality, and assuming the two amps both generate enough current and wattage to properly drive the transducers without driving them into clipping.
I would love it if "transparency" could be defined relative to real instruments, but there are far too many compromises, beginning with the very first component in the signal chain, the microphone. Measuring and listening for the transparency of components relative to the source signal and a reference system, however, is not impossible and is done effectively all of the time. Belief in measurement is not popular in audiophile circles, and a lot of mythology and mystery has been built up over the last couple of decades to dismiss it, but it is, actually, a pretty reliable indicator of how both trained and untrained listeners will respond in listening tests. Go to Sean Olive's (Research director for Harman International) blog, Audio Musings. It hasn't been running that long; you can probably read through the entire archives in a couple of hours. You will be enlightened.
P
Can people tell the two pieces of equipment apart from the sound alone?
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
I now understand why you have trouble relating to other's conversations and always resort to only what you've been told .
rw
.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
observation has always been a critical component. At least for those who experience the world instead of just talking about it.Here's a reminder for the scientific method:
"A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."
rw
Edits: 06/23/10
""A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."
I should point out that listening without knowing the DUT is observation. Meyer and Moran did some testing of a hypothesis. Their report of the tests passed through peer review. So their tests meet the definition you have supplied.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
N/T
.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
... coupled with the fact that you apparently don't hear either, makes conversation with you absolutely pointless.
Have another doughnut.
.
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
Tom has shot down you're contentions about common grounds
For speaker wires, perhaps. And admits that his test is control-free. He has no idea as to whether or not the box dumbs down the test. We'll set validity aside. He continues to speculate about interconnects leading to active power amps where Frank Van Alstine has different experience. Test question: what happens when you plug interconnects from a powered up preamp to a powered up power amplifier? Got a clue? Can you tell us any manufacturer's who recommend this procedure?
Most significantly, you haven't shown controlled testing to show that power cords (and some other things) make an audible difference in a sensible application.
Who gives a crap? Certainly not the recording and audio professionals (not in the cable business) who use them every day. They don't share your lack of exposure and confidence in what you hear. Join Tom in your speculation all you please.
All you can appeal is worthless anecdotal evidence.
As opposed to Tom's non-experiential speculation? LOL!
If you complain about blind tests that have been done
I continue to point out they are control free and largely worthless. Do find a test involving a box where a control was first conducted on the box in situ . Best of luck to you. Are you really interested in what is scientifically valid? It would seem - NOT.
rw
You throw out the term, "worthless," without specifying the objective, which makes the usage essentially meaningless except emotively. An evaluation of the test implies it has an objective. When are able to figure that out, maybe then you can talk sensibly about what is "scientifically valid." Otherwise, no.
If your objective is to reinforce your prejudices about cables, then no doubt you would find most DBTs done as worthless for that purpose. So what? We already know you don't like them.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
When are able to figure that out, maybe then you can talk sensibly about what is "scientifically valid."
then get back with us. The assumption that placing an additional component in a test system tying together multiple cables has no effect is just that - an assumption. Comprende?
Apparently, you already realize how stupid switching ICs between pre and power amps is - unless of course they have common grounds to prevent profound switching pops. Good!
rw
Why don't you include the context of what I said, which was:
"An evaluation of the test implies it has an objective. When are able to figure that out, maybe then you can talk sensibly about what is "scientifically valid.""
You haven't told us about the objectives, no doubt for the good reason that you can see that it undermines your arguments.
You then come up with a straw man:
"The assumption that placing an additional component in a test system tying together multiple cables has no effect is just that - an assumption. Comprende?"
No one is making such an assumption.
But if you prefer expensive power cords, interconnects, and speaker cables, go right ahead and buy them. No one is stopping you.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
> "The assumption that placing an additional component in a test system tying together multiple cables has no effect is just that - an assumption. Comprende?"
No one is making such an assumption. <
Then I find it odd that none of the ABX proponents has tested it to see what effect it does have, if any.
As E-Stat says, such lack of knowledge truly does make ABX a parlor game. Possibly cute, but ultimately pointless.
“Then I find it odd that none of the ABX proponents has tested it to see what effect it does have, if any.”
In the testing I described, all the participants had a chance to get used to their wires, had a chance to pick out the best, most revealing music passages, were all accustomed to whatever changes if any the switcher caused and could still “hear” their wires clearly when they said they were ready (to be “blinded by science” or rather having the knowledge of which was which was eliminated leaving only the aural inputs).
Nothing at all changed in the test except the loss of the little lamp which said which cable was which.
Now, here is a case where nothing the switcher did was any different, nothing the cables did was any different ONLY the loss of the identity changed, ONLY that was responsible for the apparently large change in hearing acuity.
One is left asking, when is it desirable to separate the domains, the customary view of hearing as an experience as opposed to what one can genuinely detect with ones ears alone.
I think the difference is important if you’re engineering a product as you are only concerned with what others might hear from your design without knowing you or your approach, while the user may not care at all why something appears to work, why they need to wear their lucky underwear to an important meeting.
I cannot say I have tested exotic power cables, this niche is a fairly recent event in aftermarket add on’ s likely having more to do with standardized power connectors and a marketing opportunity than manufactures cheating the design with a insufficient cord or plug.
Theoretically, given the size of the power distribution system, except for the absence of, should not make the kind of difference that would be revealed in this kind of test.
Until someone does that test, one can’t say with certainty which domain the claimed effect is in.
I can say that a proper power supply would normally not be subject to reasonable amounts of crud on the AC line, in test equipment a very high degree of immunity is required, price point and the designers skill is the issue.
Best,
Tom
> In the testing I described, all the participants had a chance to get used to their wires, had a chance to pick out the best, most revealing music passages, were all accustomed to whatever changes if any the switcher caused and could still “hear” their wires clearly when they said they were ready (to be “blinded by science” or rather having the knowledge of which was which was eliminated leaving only the aural inputs). <
Sounds like a DBT-within-a-DBT is needed. Or maybe a "bias-cure-within-a-bias-cure", would be better stated. :)
...were all accustomed to whatever changes if any the switcher caused
The only way that would be possible is to compare listening through the switch to listening without the switch and extra cabling. The box is used or it is not. That would be the necessary control to replace the assumption set.
His main point is that folks tend to focus on visual cues. If proving that was the objective of the test, then it succeeded. If the objective, however, was to objectively compare the signal wires, then it failed.
rw
"The only way that would be possible is to compare listening through the switch to listening without the switch and extra cabling. The box is used or it is not. That would be the necessary control to replace the assumption set."
Alternately, if one were to assert that covering a cable with magic marker changed it, one is stuck either measuring the effect from the standpoint of electronic theory OR by asking if anyone hears any difference.
The electronic theory approach used to design things says if the effects are small enough, they will not be detectable, the idea with the switcher is that to do this test one must compare so what matters is the stray elements are very small as they were (like a few inches of cable).
The point is that once no one knew which was which, the differences that they heard went away, that part was a blind test, if you really can't tell which is which or a difference between A and B using only your ears, the differences are very small..
The usefulness was in showing everyone just how large even dominating what they expect or know was relative to the actual / detectable acoustic changes the different speaker cables imparted relative to zip cord.
That part was huge, totally unexpected and humbling for some who were totally "sure" about their cables.
One can debate everything makes a difference even a flyspeck of dust in the room and it does at some level, but until one removes prior knowledge from the test, one is not measuring what your ears hear but an opinion which encompasses what you know and believe as well..
The point is that once no one knew which was which, the differences that they heard went away, that part was a blind test, if you really can't tell which is which or a difference between A and B using only your ears, the differences are very small..
Do you have any interest with pursuing the differences that are found with cabling? Do you honestly think that Wal-Mart zip cord is indistinguishable from Nordost Odin on a superlative system? What is your initial bias?
That part was huge, totally unexpected and humbling for some who were totally "sure" about their cables.
Once you've made the unproven assumption that loading the amplifier with both cables using the box had no effect. Who knows - perhaps the cables tested were no better than zip cord in the test system. BTW, what was the test system? Could others duplicate your test for verification? I use low DC cables because electrostats are more sensitive to both C and L. Others are not.
...but until one removes prior knowledge from the test, one is not measuring what your ears hear but an opinion which encompasses what you know and believe as well.
Do you think this concept is under debate?
rw
“Who knows - perhaps the cables tested were no better than zip cord in the test system. BTW, what was the test system? Could others duplicate your test for verification? I use low DC cables because electrostats are more sensitive to both C and L. Others are not.”
First, I understand your skepticism. Second, in particular electrostatic speakers require a low inductance as a capacitive load will form a second order low pass filter. Understand, I am not saying cables do nothing, they do something to be sure and what they do is in part related to the length.
I have a tower I use to measure speakers up in the air so that there are no significant reflections into the bass range. I need to do this in order to design the crossovers I use which do not result in phase shift, the result being something like a full range ESS, not spreading a signal out in time.
A hundred feet of good mic cable is no real problem but a hundred feet of speaker cable is a real problem. I need to have the measurement error it adds to be very small even at 100 feet. I evaluated all the likely choices but none had low enough series L, normal extension cord would produce an error/ roll off of 2 dB at 20KHz with accordant phase shift, TOO large.
I ended up making a cable from a pair of low loss coax cables (a variant of RG-9913) cross coupled.
That 100 foot cable pair ended up having the L and C in the range of the 10 foot kimber cable sample I had while having about 1/8 the Rdc. If you want to try a theoretically blameless cable, the stuff (the modern low loss RG-8’s extended family) is dirt cheap compared to audio hose, the electrical parameters are very good, the design scientific.
If you have a ham fest locally, you can pick up usable lengths of this stuff for a few bucks, look for the stranded center conductor which is more flexible.
I have a tower...
Was the speaker cable test using the box conducted with the speakers on the tower with 100' of run for each cable?
rw
"Was the speaker cable test using the box conducted with the speakers on the tower with 100' of run for each cable?"
No, for the listening tests, the cables were what the attendees brought and varied from 10 feet to about 30 feet (10 meters i would guess)in length.
For the measurement set up, each cable type was measured open and close circuit to determine the series L, R and parallel C, ALL of these properties are directly proportional to the length so one the values 'per foot" are determined, then the effect of any length out to about 1/8 wavelength can be calculated. At 20KHz, 1/8 wl is still well over a mile so there is no transmission line effect to be concerned with in audio cables normally..
Interestingly, one cable type was significantly worse than lamp cord, that was the generic round hardware store extension cord. It has much more space between conductors and so had by far the highest inductance per foot.
That series inductance can only exist when there is uncoupled flux between the two conductors (which carry equal but opposing currents), the self shielding of the coax apraoach or the weaving (and extension of twisted pair) greatly reduces the un-coupled flux which is why these types have low series L.
Best,
Tom
with the last post was to ascertain your test system to be able to put it into context. Source. Amplification. Speakers. Program material. Cabling not under comparison.For the measurement set up...
Was that done first without box and then WITH BOX and other cable(s) connected?
I was more interested with actual measurements, not calculated values in a vacuum.
rw
Edits: 06/22/10
> His main point is that folks tend to focus on visual cues. If proving that was the objective of the test, then it succeeded. If the objective, however, was to objectively compare the signal wires, then it failed. <
Precisely.
I'm not against blind testing at all. I'm not even against double blind if it can be pulled off properly, and not even against the box if it can be proven that it works as advertised. In other words, I'd like that same stuff I get asked for repeatedly... evidence.
is that one is limited by a set assumptions that can omit causal factors.
Theoretically, given the size of the power distribution system, except for the absence of, should not make the kind of difference that would be revealed in this kind of test.
The "miles and miles" argument misses the relevant points. Here is some commentary from near ten years ago from an engineer who used to work at GamuT
Ole's comments
Perhaps all of the award winning recording artists, engineers and audiophiles who have used aftermarket cords for years are just experiencing mass hysteria. Or...
rw
Ole's comments reflect traditional power supply engineering.
I have seen sketchy power supplies in audio before but think about it this way;
If you made test equipment, part of the requirement is that the ac power have minimal or no effect on the measurements OR what your measuring.
If you examine either HP or tektronics test gear from the 80's, that is pretty much what you have.
Now, do you think any of them would have not spent some extra bucks for better /easier compliance, by using a special cord?
Put your self in a hifi mfr's shoes, your interested in the maximum performance possible, you buy parts in huge quantities, would you short on the design of your expensive amplifiers by putting on an inferior AC cord? NO you don't, you use the connectors and hardware that looks like what is expected given the cost.
That leaves the sellers of aftermarket power cables. What motive do they have, what ability to analyze what is needed do they have the original mfr didn't?
I am not saying one can't hear a power cables, but ideally you shouldn't be able to and if so, there is the question of which domain it may be in.
Put your self in a hifi mfr's shoes, your interested in the maximum performance possible, you buy parts in huge quantities, would you short on the design of your expensive amplifiers by putting on an inferior AC cord? NO you don't, you use the connectors and hardware that looks like what is expected given the cost.
I have spoken with several directly on that matter and find a different answer than your assumption. I wouldn't use the term "short on the design" either. What Jud Barber, Luke Manley and Ole have said is they don't see the need to add cost to their products only for those who wish it. My forte is inventory management and stocking expensive power cables merely adds disproportionately to the overall cost. My GamuT CD-1 came delivered without a cord altogether. A basic, UL approved one would have been provided free upon request, but most users don't go that route. Using your logic, why don't amplifier and/or speaker manufacturers provide interconnects and speaker cabling? You certainly can't use the speaker without cables! What speaker wire do you include with purchase price with your designs?
rw
"Then I find it odd that none of the ABX proponents has tested it to see what effect it does have, if any."
Tell it to E. Brad Meyer.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
> Tell it to E. Brad Meyer. <
Do you think he'd listen? Do you think he's at all curious as to whether the components under test are being compared to themselves instead of each other? Maybe, but one cannot tell from the post you linked.
No one is making such an assumption.
Except of course for guys like Roger Russell, Tom Noussaine, etc. Maybe Tom is different and couldn't care less if using a box invalidates any comparisons. Parlor games can be fun.
rw
"Except of course for guys like Roger Russell, Tom Noussaine, etc. Maybe Tom is different and couldn't care less if using a box invalidates any comparisons."
Just putting out names of people you disagree with does not establish your point. They are not a stupid as you seem to think they are.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
rw
Sadly, it in not possible to conduct a comparative test without switching between the two things under comparison.
While It is possible to have a person at each end to switch the physical cables, this is not as fast and as others doing blind testing have found, the people doing the switching can intentionally or more often unintentionally affect the test consistence with what they belive.
For example(s) cold fusion the conclusions from the Princeton University paranormal research (pear) work.
To remove that operator effect, a mechanical switcher was used, which from an engineering view would have added an insignificant alteration in the “in vs out” signals or amplifier loading.
One cannot make such a switch that has no effect in the most skeptical view, all one can do in the engineering view is make that alteration a very very small effect relative to the differences (between cable properties in this case) one is looking for.
Thus, having a switch which represented a few inches of the best cable under consideration, when that cable is 10 to 30 feet long, represents an insignificant effect.
Insignificant especially when compared to what the test (and other similar tests) generally revealed about how terribly strong the automatic “filling in the blanks” part of our conscious experience of “hearing” is, compared to what one can honestly draw from the acoustic signal alone.
This was generally humbling to the attendees, maybe like realizing one’s own “response curve” more or less followed the equal loudness contours instead of being FLAT. But, hey, that’s the only thing we are aware of, what we experience and like many things we know no differently until someone actually measures it.
Best,
Tom
Sadly, it in not possible to conduct a comparative test without switching between the two things under comparison.Uh, yeah. Do we have anyone in the audience who doesn't understand this? :)
While It is possible to have a person at each end to switch the physical cables, this is not as fast and as others doing blind testing have found, the people doing the switching can intentionally or more often unintentionally affect the test consistence with what they belive.
And the assumptions keep rolling in... I've used my wife (a university pharmacy professor) to proctor changes. First of all, she doesn't even know which cable should be "better". Secondly, and more importantly, I've left the room through one door and she enters through another where there is no opportunity for visual cues. And no, she doesn't stamp her foot once with one choice and twice for another. :)
Thus, having a switch which represented a few inches of the best cable under consideration, when that cable is 10 to 30 feet long, represents an insignificant effect.
Your response is a perfect example of the pitfalls of substituting assumptions for empirical data. The obvious concern is not the effect of a "few inches" of cable. It is that the switch exhibits crosstalk such that you are not comparing A with B. You are comparing AB with AB. All that you had to do to answer my repeated questions about first establishing a control is reply "No, I did not use a control. I assume that the box exhibits perfect isolation between the cables and that it has no possible effect on the outcome.
I guess your test system is likewise an irrelevant part of the test. I'll stop here since you seem to have difficulty with simple, direct answers. Thanks anyway!
rw
Edits: 06/22/10
> Secondly, and more importantly, I've left the room through one door and she enters through another where there is no opportunity for visual cues. And no, she doesn't stamp her foot once with one choice and twice for another. :) <
LOL!
I've found a similar method to work wonderfully. Doesn't require a switchbox, allows for long term listening and is foolproof. That's all that matters to me.
To be honest, I don’t know what you’re asking for, bare with me here, I am in engineering. When I say insignificant, to me that means something in particular, it doesn’t mean it’s gone but very small.
You ask about measurements, this is how one concludes what insignificant is relative to what your trying to measure, for electrical components I use one of these;
http://www.testequipmentconnection.com/index.php?main_page=search&search=4274A&gclid=CK3Ar9-StKICFQQMDQodfmWg5g
For networks, I use one of these;
http://www.testequipmentdepot.com/usedequipment/hewlettpackard/spectrumanalyzers/3562a.htm?gclid=CKiLiqmStKICFVD75wod2iBA4g
Or a TEF-20 to measure driver impedance curves as with the tower. Also, a network simulator program which with some steering can derive the equivalent circuits for most drivers and deal with a drivers as the load for a filter network etc.
It is relatively easy to measure the signal at each end of a cable too, even using music as the test signal, without a switcher too. That way if one is in doubt about the signal being altered and if it is according to network theory, one can examine the difference and see how close that is to predicted based on measured parameters.
AS for the listening system used back in the cable tests, the amplifiers were several, a threshold stasis (mine) a mcintosh 240, a QSC pl-236, in the amp listening a chevin something and several crowns were added.
The speakers were an early version of a full range horn product used in commercial sound.
The goal (for the last 12 years) was hi fidelity for a large group of people, all the problems one faces get worse as the size of the room increases. My solution was to make a full range horn system where all of the drivers combined coherently into one source with no lobes, no crossover phase shift, constant directivity and high output, all things desirable for home hifi too..
The closest “hifi speaker I have measured “in time” was a manger which was admittedly somewhat better than the SH-50. The SH-50 does go about 30 dB louder, two octaves lower and has about 1/1000 the distortion at livingroom listening levels and does reproduce a square wave “out front” for more than a decade spanning both crossovers. While not aimed at hifi, they are about as close as commercial sound has at the moment and a few have found their way into livingrooms, search here SH-50.
A more typical large scale “hifi” use;
http://audioheritage.csdco.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?26261-IMAX-cinema-sound&p=265081
Best,
Tom Danley
rw
E-Stat, you seem determined to keep ignoring the elephant in the room on this one.
The one point I drew from reading (and rereading) this is that when a light was present that indicated which cable was in use, the proclamations regarding power cord differences were quite grand.
When the light was disabled, things became far less certain.
It did not appear to me that anything else in the test setup regarding the switching process changed.
I suppose one could have some exotic theory about the effect of the power consumed or emitted by the light impacting the cables but that requires ignoring something that is actually consistently demonstrated in humans - subjective bias. One has to ignore a well established effect and go looking for obscure explanations.
That doesn't mean it can't be, but as suggested by Occam's Razor, the odds do not favor the elaborate when a simpler explanation accounts for the situation.
Simply put, as the visibility and knowledge of the items under test in an audio comparison becomes lower, the language used to describe differences also becomes less dramatic.
That does not mean there are no differences, but the scale certainly changes.
The one point I drew from reading (and rereading) this is that when a light was present that indicated which cable was in use, the proclamations regarding power cord differences were quite grand.
When the light was disabled, things became far less certain.
It did not appear to me that anything else in the test setup regarding the switching process changed.
I suppose one could have some exotic theory about the effect of the power consumed or emitted by the light impacting the cables but that requires ignoring something that is actually consistently demonstrated in humans - subjective bias. One has to ignore a well established effect and go looking for obscure explanations.
100% spot on.
I would not say there are no differences but rather in order to separate what you want or know from what you hear, a test without knowledge is about the only way to remove the internal input part..
Then, the results, what you hear with ears alone, is what you actually hear as a result of air motion component.
Sure you can do the test wrong or cheat and that is no more informative or accurate than not testing at all.
and a test devoid of externally produced distortions only presumed to be perfect.
rw
I agree. However, that is rarely what is posited by either "side" in this never-ending debate.
There seems to be a confusion between anger and frustration at the "the change blew my socks off!" crowd, and the "audible differences are possible" crowd. The absurdity of the quantitative aspects of the claim do not dismiss the potential qualitative aspects of the claim. Having an argument about the size of the pink elephant may interest some of you guys, but I'm interested in the claim of there being a pink elephant of any size in the room...;)
> Having an argument about the size of the pink elephant may interest some of you guys, but I'm interested in the claim of there being a pink elephant of any size in the room...;) <
Well stated! All I've ever really claimed was that all cables do NOT sound the same, including some that are perfectly acceptable via measurements for a home audio system. This I know to be a fact. If the differences are too small for many people to worry about, that's a personal assessment, not an all-encompassing fact. People around here seem to confuse the two regularly! :)
That I'll buy. Not the original post title.
rw
If one adopts a "good enough" attitude in selecting individual components there is a real risk that one will end up with a system that is not good enough.
If a difference can not easily pass a rigorous blind test then it is probably not sonically significant. Unfortunately, if one uniformly discounts "insignificant" differences, then one may end up with a system that contains the sum of many small "insignificant" differences and one may have a system that is significantly degraded. The problem is that "sounds the same" is not a transitive relation. A can sound the same as B and B can sound the same as C, but there may be an obvious difference in sound when comparing A and C.
Perhaps this is one reason why the best sound is found in the homes of deluded crazy "audiophools". The "sounds the same to me" and "theory says it must sound the same" crowd end up with mediocrity.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Sorry :).
I DO agree that if one adopts a "good enough" approach they may end up with a system that is not good enough. I may even agree that if a difference cannot EASILY pass a blind A/B test, that it is not "sonically significant." But if a difference consistently fails a rigorous A/B test, well within the margin for error, we're not dealing with the insignificant, we're dealing with the inaudible. Is it possible that a distortion could exist at an inaudible level, and exactly the same distortion could be repeated in other components in the system until it became audible? Sure. Unlikely, but possible. So I suppose, at the extreme, I even agree with that.
What I disagree with is the notion that this problems are most often mitigated through audiophile obsessiveness. Blindly pursuing subjective "quality" can only eliminate insignificant problems by chance, and the biggest problem, of course, is the subjective part. MOST obsessive audiophile systems I've heard, and I've heard a bunch, had significant problems as a direct result of the subjectivists' ethos. More often than not, it is an excessive warmth that the audiophile considered "musical" but was definitely not an accurate reproduction of the material. on occasion, it is the opposite: an etched, edgy high end - nothing but exaggeration and harshness, really - that was being heard as "detail" by the audiophile in love with the system.
And these characteristics are deliberately engineered into many audiophile components.
There's nothing wrong with loving any of the above, of course, though I think such love is often fickle and a major cause of all the shifting and "upgrading" of audiophile systems. In these systems, in these homes, I often hear the most dramatic sound, but not often the best. The best I usually hear in the control rooms of engineers with really good ears and a really good understanding of their systems. YMMV. And by the way, if A sounds like B and B sounds like C, but C does not sound like A, the test was not only not rigorous, it was deeply flawed.
P
I object to the dogmatic definition of "hearing" which is equated by the audio denialists as passing a short time double blind test. If the ear were the detecting instrument, perhaps that would work, but it's the entire person. So, for example, one "hears" bass with one's gut. But more important is the assumption that consciousness is unitary, and that one either hears something or doesn't hear it. While this may be true (perhaps for evolutionary reasons) for hearing objects in the foreground, where the brain (or mind) quickly picks out features, there is also a much slower perception of the background, the auditory environment out of which the mind pulls interesting objects. In normal life this changes slowly and so it is entirely possible that the mind uses different processing with different time constants to pull information out in this category. One way of looking at it is that the mind is creating a framework to better optimize its detection of new foreground objects, so as to better eat, but not be eaten.
If you conduct rapid switching tests you will never be able to detect any slow time constant processing by the brain if the testing is blind, because the mind won't possibly be able to create and reference separate contexts for long term signal processing. It will be stuck averaging everything together. Perhaps long term blind tests, where each trial lasts for days or weeks will work, but to get statistically validity no one is going to do this unless someone is paying them for this mental torture.
Understand, this is purely a speculative theory of mine and I haven't articulated it well. However, the mere possibility that this can happen negates the argument that if you can't hear a difference short term it isn't there. It's unfair to the denialists, but they are trying to prove a negative, something that can not be done without rigorously enumerating all of the alternatives and specifically excluding each one.
A simpler example, but not so general, is to note that sometimes when you play a recording on a better system you will hear things that you missed on lesser equipment. (An example would be a musical part that has been doubled up.) Once you've heard it, you will continue to hear it on the inferior equipment because you have trained your mind better, or just your mind is filling in the details from memory.
More to the point, as it relates to the demise of the recording industry, is that there are sonic distortions that aren't readily audible that cause listener fatigue. A recording can sound better, short term, and yet be so fatiguing that you can't listen to a complete album. This is one of the problems with many early digital recordings, which were over etched with lots of glaring energy, possibly ringing at 22,050 Hz due to the brick wall filter which should never be used in recording but which are still common.
Obsessiveness is the driver for progress. Unfortunately, the obsessive suffer for their perfectionism. The problem with Audio is that it has become socially structured so that the obsessive suffer and get good sound, but the denialists, in the name of Science, deny this and there is no net progress. As a result, the run of the mill consumers do not get an progress in the form of better sound. All of the technological progress has been directed into reduced costs, reduced size, and reduced convenience at the expense of sound quality, which is to be expected since better sound has been scientifically proven to be an illusion.
Many of the obsessive audiophiles may be fools who waste time and money on useless gadgets, but these people harm only themselves. The deniers harm music lovers everywhere in ways that none of us can even imagine, through their denial of progress.
It is common in many fields to ignore things that don't really matter. This is just what lazy people do. I used to see this when working with programmers writing software. The program was uncompetitively slow, but each person said that his code only ran 10% of the time and even if it was made to run infinitely fast there wouldn't be any significant improvement in the product. The end result of this attitude, since it wasn't possible to educate these people or get them fired, was that the company went out of this line of business.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Well, I'm certainly not a denialist by your definition. I believe there are differences, but I often disagree with the quality of them. And I'm afraid we completely disagree on the state of the industry and the effect it has had on progress. I believe, in fact, that studio and "mid-fi" audio has taken huge leaps forward in the last couple of decades while much of the high end has stagnated in it's own denial...denial of science, engineering and measurement. Present company excepted, of course, but so much of the high-end seems to believe that the distortions and colorations of old analog systems are somehow more "natural" than a more faithful reproduction of the recording that there are even DACs are built with analog output sections promised to add warmth and a more "analog-like sound." When it is made clear that these are colorations, we're told measurements don't matter. When the measurement are too compelling to be denied, we're told that it's all subjective and that the preferred color while not technically more accurate, is more "musical."
The end result is that audiophile publications rarely measure anything anymore, or subject it to any kind of rigorous scrutiny at all, they simply express opinions and pass purely subjective judgements, audiophile customers follow suit, and manage to believe that coloration and bandwidth limitations are somehow more "resolving," and audiophile manufacturers cater to the above, selling sometimes obscenely expensive kit that, at least to my ears, just sounds sloppy at one end and edgy at the other.
There are many exceptions of course...well, I can't think of many in the publications, but there are many among audiophiles and enough among the vendors. But there are far too many that are not exceptions, and I think THAT has stagnated much of the audiophile world while the best "midfi" got pretty darned good and the better pro playback systems, even the small, affordable ones, got downright awesome. I would personally take a lossless file, a good pro DAC and a pair of the better small active monitors/sub over absolutely any high-end vinyl/tube system I've ever heard. No exceptions.
YMMV, of course. Good discussion.
P
If a difference can not easily pass a rigorous blind test then it is probably not sonically significant.
Other than codec type tests where the only variable is which computer-controlled source file is played, are you aware of any double blind test ever peddled here that could be considered "rigorous", i.e. controlled and not governed by unproven assumptions? I certainly cannot. Your buddy E Brad doesn't understand the control concept, takes a Scarlet O'Hara "I'll worry about that tomorrow" approach or demonstrates a "I can't hear you - la la la la la la" stance. When every recording engineer has compared the direct feed of a recording through multiple resolutions and found Redbook lacking, why would E Brad ever consider that his test is fatally flawed?
The most amusing cases of control-and-logic-failure have come from our dear departed inmate Soundmind, aka SM. Don't know if your were here before his anti-social behavior got him banned here (elsewhere as well). He was a unique combination of one part engineer (not audio at that), ten parts music listener (he had a wonderful grasp of classical music), ten parts arrogance, twenty parts pomposity and another ten parts of ignorance. The first example is his "proof" that a cable is audibly perfect:
I are intelligent
Obviously, SM doesn't consider that in the real world, cables interact with sources and amplifiers that aren't in a buffer loop. Obviously, SM doesn't consider that some cables reject RFI better than others when in proximity to high concentration generators, i.e. CD/SACD players. Obviously, SM doesn't understand the circular reasoning of his assumption that because all of the $2 cables in his system are perfect, that his system itself couldn't affect the outcome. Perfect and arrogant ignorance.
The other example is explained in a series of deleted posts where he never addressed my observations, but used similar logical fallacies. He used two mediocre preamps, a Marantz 3800 and an H-K Citation 11 (I owned one of those myself thirty some years ago). He *determined* that both were audibly perfect because - and this is priceless - that because when he piped one of them through the other using his $2 interconnects, he couldn't tell any difference. Conclusion: both are audibly perfect!
I am willing to discuss these topics with anyone who demonstrates intellectual honesty. No doubt, we will see yet another fleeting appearance of one who most does not fit that description. :)
rw
"When every recording engineer has compared the direct feed of a recording through multiple resolutions and found Redbook lacking, why would E Brad ever consider that his test is fatally flawed?"
Most, perhaps. But not all. E Brad is a recording engineer, but I haven't heard any examples of his work.
Sorry to be picky.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
E-stat
"When every recording engineer has compared the direct feed of a recording through multiple resolutions and found Redbook lacking, why would E Brad ever consider that his test is fatally flawed?"
I am not quite sure just what E-stat is saying there, but he seems to refer to all the editing ("multiple resolutions," whatever he means by that)one might do prior to putting a recording on to a CD. I don't think anyone maintains that hi-rez editing is not better than 44.1 kHz digital. The Meyer-Moran paper doesn't address that, just whether the resulting stereo recording can be recorded onto Redbook digital without audible degradation--save for some additional noise audible at very high levels. That's all that was tested, as the very title of the article suggests:
E. Brad Meyer, "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback," JAES, Vol. 55, No. 9, 2007 September.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Actually, even if you believe their tests were sensitive enough and the listeners well trained (I don't) they did not show that you could record at 44/16 and not lose anything. The reason: they did not actually record anything at 44/16, just converted data in that format on the fly .
Indeed, there could be degradations in the 44/16 equipment that they used that could have gone unnoticed in 44/16 loop back that might have been grossly audible were the device actually used to record and then play back later. For example, if the clock were very unstable it might impart a tremendous amount of jitter on record that would be almost exactly undone when playback took place with the same clock. But if the data had been stored between record and playback any clock errors would not have canceled so neatly.
IMO the entire concept that two sounds that differ by less than the threshold of hearing are somehow equivalent does not generalize in the context of a complete record-playback system. Substituting one "equivalent" component for another may result in two sounds that are equivalent, but if a bunch of equivalent components are all substituted the cumulative result may be well over the threshold. Hence, tests like those that Meyer and Moran ran are relevant, at best, to those who are willing to settle for mediocrity.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Well, the tests dealt with what is possible with the consumer product. If the SACD or DVD sounds different from the CD (and I know there are dual layer SACD/CDs), one has the right to ask why, since at the levels used, no one in the Meyer-Moran tests showed they could, and that includes some "audio professionals."
The Meyer and Moran tests took the analog output of the SACD or DVD players and digitized it to a 44.1 kHz sampling rate and then converted it to analog. I personally wouldn't call that data conversion, as from what I understand that is a purely digital process.
Since you are too cheap to get the journal article, I will provide you with a couple of URLs for the paper and a further explanation:
http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Thanks for emailing the link.
I am not too cheap. I don't pay for journal articles on principle . At one time journals actually did something: they did editing, typesetting and production. Now the editing and type setting is done by the author and the production is essentially free. As before, the editorial function is done by free volunteers. (I just refereed a paper yesterday.) In other words, journals are a rip-off and I won't support them unless absolutely necessary. (In this case, I already read the article because Brad mailed it to me when it originally came out. I just couldn't find it.)
I don't mind paying money to authors (or in the case of music, artists). It's just being ripped off by middlemen that bugs me. Technical standards are the worst, because all of the people that do all the work to write the standards don't get any money for their efforts. One of the reasons why the TCP/IP based Internet technology won in the marketplace was because all of the standards for the Internet are available for free downloading, encouraging additional contributions from impecunious students, etc...
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Comparing same content of live mic feed vs. recordings at various resolutions, i.e. DXD, 24/192, DSD, 24/88, Redbook, etc.
Example
Another
One from Tony
rw
That is a different situation and not what Meyer and Moran tested. And for this new situation, all you offer is anecdotal evidence. That would be a good reason to do a controlled DBT to see if it's actually so, but you have such a low standard for what you accept as evidence.
I have Telarc Digital Stereo 5039, the famous LP recording of Band Suites by Holst, and music by Handel and Bach. In the liner notes, Stan Ricker said: "The signal from the digital sounds exactly the same as what we heard coming from those transformerless Schoeps microphones." Of course, the Soundstream sampled at 48 kHz, not 44.1 kHz.
So, I can find anecdotal evidence which indicates hi-rez is not necessary to produce recordings indistinguishable from the mic feed. Now, if you could only come up with some controlled DBTs that establish your beliefs, that would be great.
The fact is that the SACD and DVD signals were passed through a 44.1 kHz DAC and were not distinguished by the audiophiles taking the tests run by Meyer and Moran. Coming up with some other situation which you think should be tested doesn't affect the validity of their results.
According to E. Brad Meyer, "no one can tell when an ABX box is in the circuit." To make your objection at all significant, you would have to show that someone, at least, can hear it in the circuit. I've been waiting for years.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
That is a different situation and not what Meyer and Moran tested.
Comparing the original feed is the real world, not some contrived attempt at duplicating the real world.
Stan Ricker said: "The signal from the digital sounds exactly the same as what we heard coming from those transformerless Schoeps microphones." Of course, the Soundstream sampled at 48 kHz, not 44.1 kHz.
Obviously, his opinion changed when he had access to higher resolution:
Here with Meitner
"I have to admit that...
"...the tape which was, I believe, 96 K, 20-bit from a Nagra certainly sounds better than the CD that came from that recording."
I have also heard a direct feed from the original Soundstream recorder when I participated in the ASO recording of the Firebird.
The fact is that the SACD and DVD signals were passed through a 44.1 kHz DAC and were not distinguished by the audiophiles taking the tests run by Meyer and Moran
Yep, that is what happens when you assume a $250 player is audibly perfect.
According to E. Brad Meyer, "no one can tell when an ABX box is in the circuit."
Fine. Provide the details of the control tests he ran in order to verify that assumption. I've never seen that done before.
rw
If we're comparing Stan Ricker anecdotes, which could hear better: the Stan Ricker in 1978 or the Stan Ricker over 20 years later? In any case, what is unreal about comparing the SACD or DVD with a 16/44.2 kHz recording of it? After all, there are dual layer SACD/CDs.
E-stat
"I have also heard a direct feed from the original Soundstream recorder when I participated in the ASO recording of the Firebird."
Nice recording. I have it both on LP and CD. But we discussed this before: as I recall, you didn't compare the direct feed from the mic with the feed from the Soundstream recorder.
E-stat
"Yep, that is what happens when you assume a $250 player is audibly perfect."
This is a fantasy in more ways than one. First, a number of other players were also used, including a Sony, a Yamaha, and a Denon. Second, I should point out that at very high gain levels, the testers could hear some low level nonlinearities in the left channel of the Pioneer player. Hmmm . . . the ABX switcher didn't cover that difference up, now, did it? That's not an assumption. I am also shocked that you characterize the players by their price!
Now, as well, at high gain levels, the noise levels of the CD loop in the test was audible--but the level was uncomfortably high for listening to music. My, my! The ABX switcher didn't cover that up, either. That's not an assumption, either.
In fact, with DBTs employing an ABX switcher, a number of positive results have been obtained, and you haven't come up with anything that the ABX switcher covers up.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
If we're comparing Stan Ricker anecdotes, which could hear better: the Stan Ricker in 1978 or the Stan Ricker over 20 years later?
Apparently not. He likely has a greater depth of experience over those years. I know that my exposure to more live music and higher resolution equipment has changed my perspective. I guess that is a foreign concept for one who stays on the bench.
Hmmm . . . the ABX switcher didn't cover that difference up, now, did it?
That the box reveals gross differences is not under debate.
...you haven't come up with anything that the ABX switcher covers up.
That would be virtually every recording engineer with first hand experience. Speculate on!
rw
E-stat
"That the box reveals gross differences is not under debate."
You have a peculiar idea of what gross effects might be!
Meyer and Moran looked at some of the things asserted by the subjective audio press, audio professionals, and audiophiles, and tested them. You don't seem to include the experience of researchers who do audio DBTs in your concept of experience.
Quote from me:
"...you haven't come up with anything that the ABX switcher covers up."
E-stat comments
"That would be virtually every recording engineer with first hand experience. Speculate on!"
Dream on! Some of the Meyer-Moran tests were conducted at "a CD/DVD mastering facility." "Some of the source material for these trials was a classical music production which was then in process at this establishment."
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Unlike you, many of us have experienced different systems whose performance is beyond the insipid. You're among the proud few who wave the banner of mediocrity high in the name of audio.
Dream on! Some of the Meyer-Moran tests were conducted at "a CD/DVD mastering facility.
Which further illustrates your inability to understand the significance of comparing the live feed and the result. Hint: recordings are not performed in a mastering facility. Perhaps it's time for you to look at the picture and read the text in your link:
The "bulk of the trials" were using an "audiphile grade" system (pictured) using a Pioneer DV-563 player, Adcom preamp, Carver amp and zip cord? Audiophile grade? Is he a moron or just thinks that everyone else is? That's just too funny. I am astounded at the profound ignorance demonstrated by his assumptions - both with the validity of his contrived "this-is-never-how-systems-are-used" *test* and his choice of test systems. You can prove whatever you want with such dumbed down platforms. BTW, you can pick up one of those truly revealing "state-of-the-art" players on Amazon for about $75. Go for it dude. You'll be in heaven. LOL!
rw
One wonders what you are talking about. You have just said that the mic feed and the recording sound just the same based on anecdotal evidence, including that of Stan Ricker, just as Stan Ricker said the Soundfield 16/50K recording sounded the same as the mic feed in 1978 when he was younger and could hear better.
So, do you think the digital masters deteriorated over time? Because unless you do, your objections have no force at all.
Meyer and Moran said:
"The usefulness of the increased dynamic range afforded by longer word lengths for mixdown has never been in question."
Now, in a world of dual layer SACDs and issues of recordings in more than one stereo format, there is nothing unreal about what was tested.
You seem to have no evidence that there is anything wrong with the system described, and your only criticism of the Pioneer player is its price! Tsk, tsk, shame on you.
Again, I just pointed out that no one said the Pioneer player was perfect--indeed, Meyer and Moran pointed out a flaw, audible at very high levels, but which no one managed to hear at listenable levels on music. But then no one showed they heard a difference using a number of other players, either.
You have no objections against the data; you have no substantiated objections against the equipment used.
There have been suggestions that some changes would result in a better test. That's always possible.
You seem to wish something else had been tested, but haven't specified what or how.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
There is a big difference between 50 kHz sampling and 44 kHz sampling. In my experience, going to 48 kHz gives the majority of benefit from higher sampling rates. Beyond that it's a case of diminishing returns, but with modern technology the costs are so low that it makes no sense to go below 88.2 kHz, or even 176.4 kHz. (A few cents per album extra bandwidth and storage cost for an Internet download.) In my experience, sometime you can get good results with 44.1 kHz, but it's a puzzle. There are various choices in filtering that can give you distortion free sound (no aliases), full 20 kHz frequency response, or unsmeared transients (no excessive ringing). Unfortunately, it is only possible to have two out of the three possibilities at this sampling rate. If the recording is such that all three are not really needed, then the final results can be very good, but arguably not excellent.
Meyer and Moran follow an established tradition of audio denialists to dismiss positive findings. However, they are not an extreme examples of this error. There was an AES study that reached the conclusion in the summary that there were no significant differences between high res PCM and DSD, despite the body of the same article pointing out there were a few subjects who could clearly and reliably hear the difference.
If there were money in audio then there would be "scientific" research to "prove" what most of the mastering engineers already know. Most, not all of them, unfortunately. If you can hear the difference you don't need any "authorities" or "peer review" to validate your sense impressions.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"There was an AES study that reached the conclusion in the summary that there were no significant differences between high res PCM and DSD, despite the body of the same article pointing out there were a few subjects who could clearly and reliably hear the difference."
The Blech-Yang convention paper is interesting. I will have to read it more closely.
I have pointed out to E-stat the importance of considering the purpose of a test and the appropriate standards. Blech and Yang say that:
"The results showed that hardly any of the subjects could make a reproducible distinction between the two encoding
systems. Hence it may be concluded that no significant differences are audible."
So, from a purely statistical point of view, there is a significant difference, so the authors do not disagree with you on that. They suggest, however, that the 4 Tonmeister students who did obtain significant results using headphones may have been hearing an artifact of the test process rather than a difference between DVD-A and SACD.
However, it would appear that the authors also applied another standard for some other purpose, I presume a practical one.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
The fact is that if 4 people can hear a difference, then it is likely to be audible. Even likely that the majority will be able to hear the difference once the "trick" of how to do so is explained. If you want to wallow around in the 50% percentile of excellence (a.k.a. mediocrity) be my guest. I prefer to reside in the upper half percent (a.k.a. excellence).
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
It still remains to be shown just what it was those 4 heard. The difference(s) may not have been related to the recording format, as the authors pointed out.
I congratulate you on your excellence.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
If the authors had been scientists rather than students or if there had been any money in Audio, they would have gotten to the bottom of the matter.
Right now, I am listening to a Mozart Violin concerto performed by Joseph Fuchs and Eugene Gossens, transferred from the 35mm Everest master, digitized at 96/24 and purchased from HDtracks.com and downloaded while I was out to dinner. Nice. Definitely not a truncated experience. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Definitely not a truncated experience. :-)
is you don't choose to "wallow in mediocrity". :)
rw
...when he was younger and could hear better.
Speak for yourself if you have gained zero experience and have not improved your listening skills over a twenty year period. I'm sorry to hear that - but it is quite expected.
You seem to have no evidence that there is anything wrong with the system described
Not for shallow meter readers who require a test to tell them what they've heard. Only those who have been exposed to far better understand otherwise.
...-indeed, Meyer and Moran pointed out a flaw, audible at very high levels, but which no one managed to hear at listenable levels on music.
This is really getting pathetic. You really have no idea what kinds of audible differences exist between $250 and $25,000 players. Is the Rotel the best you've heard? I remain amazed at how much ink is spilled by those who speculate (based upon their non-experience) there aren't any differences beyond gross measures of level and frequency response among audio components. Your mission to spread the word of mediocrity falls on (not) deaf ears.
rw
Well, if you want to call hearing loss with age an assumption, that's up to you, but don't expect rational people to follow. You make an assumption that listening skills will make up for that. Maybe, maybe not. But still, you have no scientific tests.
"Not for shallow meter readers who require a test to tell them what they've heard. Only those who have been exposed to far better understand otherwise."
Maybe, maybe not. You're making an assumption. The only way to establish the issue rationally is with data from controlled blind listening tests, not sighted auditions. With sighted tests, one can distinguish the DUT without even operating them.
Your quote from me:
"...-indeed, Meyer and Moran pointed out a flaw, audible at very high levels, but which no one managed to hear at listenable levels on music."
E-stat's comment:
"This is really getting pathetic. You really have no idea what kinds of audible differences exist between $250 and $25,000 players. Is the Rotel the best you've heard? I remain amazed at how much ink is spilled by those who speculate (based upon their non-experience) there aren't any differences beyond gross measures of level and frequency response among audio components. Your mission to spread the word of mediocrity falls on (not) deaf ears."
I am not an issue here, neither is my equipment. I did not participate in the tests. The point is that a number of players were used in the tests and one was identified as not as good, using the ABX Comparator--as I already pointed out. Nevertheless, it was not shown that the player was not good enough for the uses for which it was designed.
I would like to see proof that a $25,000 player is audibly better. Have you got any established by scientific methods?
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Well, if you want to call hearing loss with age an assumption, that's up to you, but don't expect rational people to follow.
Neither you nor I can speak to Mr. Ricker's hearing ability, but only the inept would assume that the top half octave is where the heart of music lies. It does not.
I would like to see proof that a $25,000 player is audibly better.
I'm sure you would. That's what folks who never have extended exposure to such gear say to rationalize their inability to hear differences that are obvious to those who have. It is indeed difficult to relate the depth of an experience to someone whose frame of reference is completely absent. Imagination always comes up short.
Do continue flying the banner of mediocrity since that is all you know!
rw
I agree with Pat-D when it comes to $25,000 players. The pricing is just plain absurd, being several times the price of the most expensive converters used to make recordings. Surely far beyond the point of diminishing returns.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
on which you base your opinion? dCS? Burmester? EMM Labs? Esoteric? Others?
Pat's conundrum is that he doesn't (even begin to) know what he doesn't know. It is difficult to base an opinion on that which is completely outside one's frame of reference.
Did you ever ask Brad why he chose cheap consumer units to use as his reference points for "high resolution audio"? Is he even remotely aware of what is available?
rw
It's been years since I was at Brad's place. At the time he was touting how his Carver amplifier was perfect and all CD players sounded the same. He even demonstrated the latter. It wasn't a convincing demonstration, not because the players sounded different but because the music didn't sound as good as I could hear over at his ex-buddy Clark's place.
My comments on converters relate to the pricing of the top pro audio converters, such as the DAD AX24 vs. the high end consumer products, not sound quality. There is a long history of over charging for consumer products, since more money buys more ego satisfaction, something that is less important in the pro audio field where performance and reliability rank first.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
It wasn't a convincing demonstration, not because the players sounded different but because the music didn't sound as good as I could hear over at his ex-buddy Clark's place.
There you go.
BTW, the EMM Labs players/DACs are pro units used by virtually all the SACD recording studios, including Sony.
rw
Why the hell would he bother with such a convoluted pipe-content-through-a-series-of-external-converters approach rather than directly comparing the same high quality feed through multiple native recording resolutions?
It makes no sense whatsoever. I am constantly amused by the contrived and indirect "kiss your elbow" test procedures some engineers go to in order to prove a point. His failed.
rw
"Why the hell would he bother with such a convoluted pipe-content-through-a-series-of-external-converters approach rather than directly comparing the same high quality feed through multiple native recording resolutions?"
Maslow's Hammer?
This was done some time ago, before the era of computer audio and widespread hi-res PCM recordings, high quality sample rate converter software, and widespread studio quality DACs. Sony and the RIAA can also be blamed for the SACD copy protection requiring the use of the "analog hole". Also, he had a hardware ABX box.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
This was done some time ago, before the era of computer audio and widespread hi-res PCM recordings
Is that how you would characterize 2007?
We're all deaf
rw
2007 was the publication date. I don't know when the actual experiments were performed. Thanks to the AES I would have to pay to download the copy of the paper that popped up on Google and unfortunately Brad mailed me a copy in hard copy a while back and I've misplaced it. I assume the paper itself will tell when the work was done, or at least the submission date of the paper to JAES.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
E Brad was comparing Redbook to SACD - which has been around for a decade now. If that's news to him, then he's not exactly with the plan.
rw
It was great taking a trip down memory lane! Ol' Andy19191 really cracked me up - and not just me, but some RE's as well. That was a hoot! Thanks! I do need to check the archives more often when I'm feeling blue. That cheered me right up! lol
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: