|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.3.91.159
In Reply to: RE: Please Tony.... posted by Tony Lauck on November 06, 2012 at 09:06:34
All audible differences can be measured given comprehensive and worthy test equipment properly used and set up
I'm sure you are correct with your history comment but I'm not sure what it has to do with this conversation.
If you or anyone else can isolate an audible difference that cannot be measured with a proper test with worthwhile equipment then I will admit I'm wrong.
But just saying you gotta believe doesn't make it so.
Follow Ups:
I kinda doubt there is a specific parameter that can be measured to assess soundstage height. Or accuracy of the sound of the venue, e.g., Boston Symphony Hall. Or "air" around the instruments. How about "blattiness" Or "wetness?" Last, but not least, musicality.
Edits: 11/06/12
My point is that if two things "sound" different you can find a difference in some measurement. As far as what measured parameter relates to what perceived sonic characteristic that's a whole other conversation for other people.
The OP was making the case for measurements being better than human hearing."Human perception via senses are limited. Both in terms of degree and especially in quantification ability. Because of this academia & sciences developed empirical measurement techniques to quantify aspects of phenomenon normally observed by human perception but were difficult to quantify. As electronics developed, devices came available to measure all aspects of the specific applications being explored. Most of these devices were capable of measuring parameters far beyond the ability of human perception. This is why in the case of the "listening dog" example we can actually measure, using a device like a spectrum analyzer, what the dog is hearing and what we cannot."
I am making the case for human hearing being better, at least for some aspects of the sound, than meaurements. Let me rephrase my previous post. If one system produces a soundstage height that is taller than a second system, how would you go about measuring the systems to determine what was responsible? Same for musicality - for a system with perceived better musicality than a second system, how would you go about measuring the systems to determine what was responsible?
Edits: 11/06/12
Two different systems, two different soundstage heights - unless all the measurements are identical it has nothing to do with disproving my point.
Systems that sound different will measure different. PERIOD!
"Systems that sound different will measure different. PERIOD!"
It's probably safe to say you haven't played around with Schumann Frequency Generators, Silver Rainbow Foil, Cream Electret, Red X Pen, things of that nature - things that have no direct or even indirect affect on house wiring, cabling, the speakers, electronics or room acoustics. If you see what I mean.
I was positive I head identified the processed CDs in my blind test, couldn't believe how much better they sounded. Unfortunately the disks I selected as being improved were not the ones processed.I also believe orange or green LEDs sound better.
So I have great respect for things that effect our perception of performance or enjoyment of audio - but in no way do I think these things actually cause sonic changes in spite of how they effect our enjoyment.
It's good enough for me if I or someone else believes something makes a sonic difference - whether or not it does or not makes no difference.
Edits: 11/06/12
I guess you are the exception that proves the rule as else I know had the opposite results, including a great number of reviewers, editors of audio magazines, and designers of high end electronics. Besides, the magic chip directly affects the actual performance of the CD and is not one of those things that go bump in the night - things such as Cream Electret, Rainbow Foil, etc. that affect perception.
I stand corrected, if you say the chip actually changes the sound I believe you. Unfortunately none of the treated disks were selected as being improved......
I can pick out a treated disc, i.e., the improved one, every single time. We are talking about the original orange Intelligent Chip, right? I wrote a paper on it once. It was the product of the show at CES 2005.
Edits: 11/07/12 11/07/12
And I picked a disk 3 out of 3 times in 3 blind tests each with 3 disks, 1 treated and 2 not treated. Unfortunately the disk I selected as being improved was never the one processed with the intelligent chip.
I originally thought this proved the IC didn't make any difference but I suppose it might mean the changes made were not considered an improvement.
And yes before I did this "test" I believed the IC made an improvement.
Truth be it told I would have been more happy with the product had I never did the tests in order to verify what I thought I was hearing. I'll know better next time.....
You are the only person who has reported such results out of many hundreds I'm familiar with. That's why I said you are the exception that proves the rule, an outlier. Blind tests are not the end all do all they're sometimes cracked up to be, apparently.
Edits: 11/07/12
If I recall correctly the experiences of others varied all over the place. Some people loved it - I was one of those - until I tested my results.
What's really bizarre the disks that weren't treated but selected as improved still sound as of they were improved to this day. I swear I knew these were the treated disks - but I was wrong.
You lost me. Do you think the unprocessed discs were actually improved during the test? Do you think the processed disc was degraded by the chip? I don't understand what you think happened. How did you determine the discs were absolutely identical prior to the test?
Edits: 11/07/12
I used 3 different CDs, ie. title and artist, for each test all of which I felt I was intimately familiar with.
I only made an effort to guess which disk had been made to sound better.
I believed I could hear improvements in one CD, in each set of 3, and still to this day believe the disks sound better than prior to the test.
Unfortunately the disks I selected as sounding better were not the disks that were treated.
No I don't believe the treated disks were degraded.
What do I think happened? I think I was fooled into believing something sounded different when it did not, that's what I think happened.
Still not clear what your test consisted of. Did it consist of three different CDs only or three sets of identical CDs? Maybe the system was still warming up so the untreated CDs sounded better as the test progressed. Who knows? That's why we can't make generalizations with one test, no matter how it turns out.
There were 9 different CDs, different artists and titles involved. I was very familiar with and had listened to each and every CD many many times. Actually I can make generalizations and form conclusions and share my results based on any experiences.
And scientific credibility? Heck no - but that's not the point. This test was good enough for me and all I needed to know I wasn't going to buy another IC. Like I said early I could have continued buying ICs and been happy with the "results" I was getting based on my feeling that the chip was actually improving the sound.
If you thought the untreated CDs had better sound after the test than before then something's wrong somewhere, if you don't mind my saying so. Personally, I think you made the test way too complicated. The easiest way to test the chip is start with two identical CDs -- you can burn two identical copies or establish that two commercial CDs sound the same. Then treat one disc and compare the treated disc to the untreated disc. If you are unsure which disc sounds better you can A/B as many times as you like. Helpful Hint: the differences are much more obvious when the chip is placed inside the player instead of on top of the player.
Edits: 11/08/12
What a pita! Someone could have done that but not me.
If there's a difference I expect it to be obvious - some subtle change is irrelevant to me.
I did admit if I didn't resort to this simple objective test I could have lived on with the belief that my enjoyment of the CDs was being enhanced by the use of the IC.
But seeing how this wasn't a one time purchase, it was something I would have had to subscribe to in order to treat all my CDs I needed a bit more convincing.
What I find really interesting though is that the disks I thought were treated still sound better than I remember them sounding before I treated the other disks. Interesting to me but not really surprising.
"If there's a difference I expect it to be obvious - some subtle change is irrelevant to me."
If there were only one possible change, then I would agree with you. However, there are many components and many possible changes and they can all add up. It can be that 10 imperceptible changes when combined add up to an obvious and relevant change. As an illustration of what I mean, a level change of 0.15 dB is going to be imperceptible to nearly everyone. However, ten changes could add up to a level change of 1.5 dB which would be obvious.
Excellence can seldom be realized with out rigorous attention to detail. Good enough won't cut it.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I take 3 CDs I've listened to dozens of times each. I treat one of them. If I can pick out the treated disk I buy more chips if not I don't.
Doesn't get any easier than that!
Like just about everything the chips are system dependent. Just look at what's happening with the WA Quantum Chips, or Schumann Frequency Generator, or Mpingo discs, or Rainbow Foil, crystals, or fuses, or even cables, fer cryin out loud. The later generation chips, including the Intelligent Box, circumvent some of the variables associated with the original Orange chip.There are perfectly good reasons why some people do not get results with some tweaks. For the specific case of the Intelligent Chip it's possible, as I pointed out 7 years ago, some players might be "problematic" for purposes of using the chip on top of the player. That's why I suggested using the chip inside the player. Perhaps your player was one of those Problematic Players, who knows. But that's just one more possible reason why you didn't get the results you were hoping for. Or maybe you did get the results you were looking for, difficult to say.
Edits: 11/08/12
"Or maybe you did get the results you were looking for, difficult to say."That's fair.
Edits: 11/08/12
I thought you'd like that one.
"If you thought the untreated CDs had better sound after the test than before then something's wrong somewhere, if you don't mind my saying so.
If you apply loving thoughts while hearing a recording of a musical performance then subsequent replays of that musical performance may evoke favorable associations. (Pavlovian) Moving into woo territory, if you evoke loving thoughts while playing a recording many times then it may make it more likely that others with enjoy the recording. (Sheldrakean) I have highly anecdotal evidence for both of these cases.
Presumably, one might get the inverse results by applying angry thoughts, but that's not something I'd be inclined to try.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Exactly, like the Japanese fellow (Dr. Emoto) who writes affirmative messages in water. when the water freezes the crystals are very beautiful. When he writes angry or unpleasant messages the crystals turn out ugly and ill-formed. He's all over YouTube. Quite reminiscent of the Red X Coordinate Pen, actually.
Edits: 11/08/12 11/08/12
"If you or anyone else can isolate an audible difference that cannot be measured with a proper test with worthwhile equipment then I will admit I'm wrong.
It's necessary to include equipment (hardware and software) and procedures. These include the selection and creation of test signals, algorithms for signal processing the received signals and procedures for statistical analysis of the results. One example concerns digital audio converters and the difficulty in measuring differences between ladder converters and sigma-delta modulator type converters. The following video describes this epiphany.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
What did I miss? Seems to me they were able to explain precisely and via measurements why their devices would sound different than others.
You missed the point. Previous measurements by many people showed that delta sigma DACs performed as well or better than other types such as ladder DACs. That was done by the usual spectral tests with 1 kHz tones, etc... One sees these charts on the spec sheets for just about all DAC chips. Many people, pretty much all non-audiophiles, found that delta-sigma DACs sounded as good or better than ladder DACS. But there were audiophiles who could hear problems that didn't match the measurements. It was necessary to come up with new measurements, which they did. With the new measurements it became clearer what was happening and they modified their designs accordingly. The result was better measured performance with the new measurements and better sound to critical audiophile listeners. So long as they were like most of the other DAC designers and believed that any problems were so small as to be inaudible they could not progress. It took a believe in the unmeasurable differences heard by audiophiles to make two advances: better measurement technology and a better measuring and sounding product.
I believe this talk, by the way, because I'd already figured out what these new measurements needed to be when I was playing around with some software that emulated delta-sigma modulators. What I didn't know was how to fix these problems and I wasn't motivated to spend the huge amount of work needed to do so as this was just a casual interest on my part. I did study the published literature and concluded that any designers that did know what they were doing were keeping their knowledge under wraps.
Audiophiles who believe measurements tell all are less likely to configure a good sounding system. Many brainwash themselves into believing that certain components are perfect and certain conditions are inaudible. In the end, these people inevitably end up with systems that sound inferior to those who work with a more open mind. They may not know it, and their audiophile friends may be tactful and not tell them that their system sucks.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Ok I understand - there are audible differences and they are measurable.
It has nothing to do with believing measurements tell all or are even useful to any particular audiophile.
A responsible equipment designer should understand why his design sounds different than other designers - if he needs to buy new equipment or devise different tests to help in this understanding (or to prove his results) then that's what he should do.
IMO many audiophiles can rely on their listening experiences when assembling a system. There's no need at all to concern themselves with measurements and beyond just a few basic specs it's perfectly fine to concentrate on the listening and to leave the technical stuff to others.
Those who want to measure and prove can do it that way if they want.
It's all good.
The problem here that the designer had (and this is the typical situation for subtle artifacts) is that two designs both measured similarly and sounded similarly to the designers. So far, so good. This makes sense. However, other people heard differences.
Here is where the rubber meets the road: die hard objectivists vs. die hard subjectivists.
In this case, all the "scientific" evidence showed that the two devices were sonically equal. The fact that some audiophools imagined differences was their problem. NOT...
In this case, because of one designer who was not a hard core objectivist, new tests were found that showed differences that could be objectively measured. It was still the case that only some listeners could hear differences, of course. With the better measurements in hand it was then possible to pursue improvements to the design, eventually leading to a new design that measured better and sounded better to those people who heard the earlier difference. Of course, this designer was not a hard core subjectivist, either, otherwise he wouldn't have developed new measurements.
It is possible for hard core subjectivsts to be designers and operate entirely by ear. However, there are few people with the talent and intuition to succeed at this. For the rest of us, a combination of measurement and listening are more effective. Without a lot of talent and dumb luck it can be useful to turn on a flashlight if one is looking for one's car keys in the middle of a dark night. (Lesson I learned at age 13 tweaking the feedback loop of a Dynaco 35 watt amplifier that didn't sound right until out of tolerance parts in the feedback loop had been adjusted.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Obvious since there were audible sonic differences all the "scientific" data could not possibly prove they were sonically the same. Clearly they lacked the proper test methodology.
No doubt if a test is set up properly and an audible difference is actually being heard there will be a scientific measurement that reveals why the difference is audible.
It's insane to conclude that an audible difference doesn't exist because some set of test points doesn't reveal the difference. Clearly one needs to adjust the test or the measured parameters to find what is causing the audible difference.
It's insane to conclude that an audible difference doesn't exist because some set of test points doesn't reveal the difference.
Staunch non-experiential objectivists do exactly that on a regular basis. :)
Staunch non-experiential objectivists do exactly that on a regular basis
Yea sure equipment that measures exactly the same at all test points is going to sound the same - but equipment will not measure the same. And sometimes even same model / same manufacturer varies enough that there will be sonic differences.
...but equipment will not measure the same.
Using exactly what metrics? Most gear measures pretty flat frequency wise. We can certainly forget useless ones like THD.
The NAD preamp used in the garage, for example, measure pretty good but does not perform at the same level of the Audio Research.
What does perform mean? Surely given real world speaker loads it pretty easy to understand why amps sound different.
Even two amps that measure identical into the complex impedence at some power level will begin to measure differently at different power levels - and this isn't only a function of approaching/exceeding power ratings of one or both amps. Linearity is not a given in amplifier design.
What does perform mean?
If you don't understand the listening experience, I won't try to explain it to you.
Surely given real world speaker loads it pretty easy to understand why amps sound different.
We're talking about preamps. I'll ask the question again. What metrics fully cover the performance envelope of preamps?
"We're talking about preamps. I'll ask the question again. What metrics fully cover the performance envelope of preamps?"
How in the F would I know what metrics cover the performance of preamps or amps for that matter?
But in an effort to keep this on topic, among other things, surely the preamps i/o characteristics, power supply design and signal path isolation all can have an effect on how well performs, ie. effects the signal passing through it.
If you don't understand the listening experience, I won't try to explain it to you.
I didn't mean to put you on the spot when I asked you what YOU meant by perform. Given your snotty assed response I might assume how well your preamp integrates with the rest of your gear (ie. how it sounds) is all that matters to you. But I won't make that assumption since you decided not to answer my query there's really no reason to continue on with this conversation.....
How in the F would I know what metrics cover the performance of preamps or amps for that matter?
Thank you for illustrating my point. Apparently, you only have blind faith in the notion that all audible differences can be measured.
Do you really not understand what the audio experience provides?
1. Resolution
The ability to discern fine detail with instruments. Hear the rosin of a bowed string. The decay of bell trees and triangles. Articulate the human voice and hear the performer's breath. Be able to pick apart individual voices in a chorus.
2. Dynamic punch
Slam factor. The ability of the system to deliver instantaneous jumps in dynamic range from the softest to loudest passages. Provide a sense of authority that the system never runs out of power and is at ease.
3. Soundstaging
How well a component can define the physical space of the original recording. While multi-miked recordings are of little value here, minimally miked ones can have incredible width and depth. You are aware of the boundaries of the venue.
4. Frequency extension
Regardless of the measured frequency response, some components deliver more extended response at the extremes. They also give you qualitative improvements. Bass can actually present texture, not only a sine wave of low frequency content.
Ask any competent engineer and you'll find out there are no magical graphs or metrics that full quantify the performance of any audio component.
"Thank you for illustrating my point. Apparently, you only have blind faith in the notion that all audible differences can be measured."
Nope measuring the preamp functions I list, plus signal path distortion, will reveal all sonic differences between preamps - audible or not.
There's no blind faith here.
You can, but it's gonna mess you up, jumping from discussing component performance and system integration the way that you are doing here.
"Ask any competent engineer and you'll find out there are no magical graphs or metrics that full quantify the performance of any audio component."
Wishful thinking on your part - if there's any group more skeptical of audiophiles than audiophile wives it is engineers. Don't give me this competent engineer BS - engineers in hoards think audiophiles are full of BS!
And further good equipment designers measure and quantify a components performance based on the characteristics of performance that represents their values.
"
Resolution
Dynamic punch
Soundstaging
Frequency extension
"
What the F - this is all integration stuff - yea your preamp will have an effect but the i/o characteristics between components including the room between your speakers and ears all play a much bigger part?
But if you got enough power, well integrated system (including room) and a dynamic mostly smooth full range frequency response you've got all that.
I know it's tough but our perception of resolution, soundstaging, frequency response and dynamic has as much or more to do with how well integrated a system is, between components (io characteristics) and with our room than it does with the quality of the gear.
Nope measuring the preamp functions I list, plus signal path distortion, will reveal all sonic differences between preamps - audible or not.
Then quantify those criteria for the two preamps I mentioned. Data on both of them is easy to find. Best of luck to you!
Don't give me this competent engineer BS - engineers in hoards think audiophiles are full of BS!
The non-experiential theorists.
...but the i/o characteristics between components including the room between your speakers and ears all play a much bigger part?
As I suspected, you have no understanding of the concepts I delineated.
But if you got enough power, well integrated system (including room) and a dynamic mostly smooth full range frequency response you've got all that.
It is a shame you never got past the mediocre. We both share owning NAD components. I find them good sounding and great value for the money. Their sins are mostly of omission and fare much better than the hard, edgy sound of pro gear. On the other hand, they are not even close to the performance level available in audio. You will never be fooled that you are in a live environment listening to them.
You have no idea.
Then quantify those criteria for the two preamps I mentioned. Data on both of them is easy to find. Best of luck to you!"What difference would such a comparison make? What's more important to me would be how they work in my system! I wouldn't have any problem doing listening comparisons with one of NADs better preamps with one built by Audio Research.
The non-experiential theorists.
Engineers or detectivist audiophiles equal well fit the bill.
As I suspected, you have no understanding of the concepts I delineated."
What concepts? You mean the verbiage you use to describe what you hear when you listen to an audio system and have confused with how one might characterize a preamps performance? Like I said, which apparently you fail to understand, is that your verbiage is a discussion of a systems performance not a characterization of a components performance (outside of that system).
It is a shame you never got past the mediocre. We both share owning NAD components. I find them good sounding and great value for the money. Their sins are mostly of omission and fare much better than the hard, edgy sound of pro gear. On the other hand, they are not even close to the performance level available in audio. You will never be fooled that you are in a live environment listening to them.
You have no idea.
Well everything is relative but my main system moved beyond NAD several decades ago. But if Spendor and Roksan Xerxes and Exposure classic and Living Voice are what you consider mediocre well then so be it. I don't care and my experiences with Audio Research is that it's not the gear for me - you buy that as truth me I haven't left an AR demo without feeling like I've been listening to someone scratching on a chalk board. The harshest most unlistenable equipment I've ever heard. Take that back there was this Counterpoint stuff that was worse. I know I haven't heard it all but if you ask me NAD sounds better for lots less...
And FWIW I won't be fooled into believing I'm listening to live music via any stereo. I have classical musicians in my family and I attend live shows on a regular basis - maybe if I was less experienced it would be easier to fool me.
Edits: 11/08/12 11/08/12
What difference would such a comparison make?You continue to illustrate my point.
I wouldn't have any problem doing listening comparisons with one of NADs better preamps with one built by Audio Research.
But obviously, you have never done so.
What concepts?
That would be the four I listed. Apparently, they are beyond your grasp.
But if Spendor and Roksan Xerxes and Exposure classic and Living Voice are what you consider mediocre well then so be it.
So, exactly what measurements quantify the audible differences between NAD gear from Exposure? You really have no idea, do you? All in faith.
And FWIW I won't be fooled into believing I'm listening to live music via any stereo.
Sorry to hear that.
Edits: 11/08/12
Components will never measure the same. Whatever point it is you are trying to make you are doing a very poor job of it.
That would be the four I listed. Apparently, they are beyond your grasp.
I'm gonna say it again - obviously it you that doesn't get it. The items you listed soundstage, resolution, bass impact, etc that you listed describe a systems performance not a components performance. YOU'RE THE ONE WHO WANTED TO TALK ABOUT PREAMP PERFORMANCE.
Sure there may be a better soundstage given this preamp or that but thats a function of system integration not necessarily preamp performance. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
"So, exactly what measurements quantify the audible differences between NAD gear from Exposure? You really have no idea, do you? All in faith."
Of course I don't - why in heavens name should I care if I purchase based on listening comparisons not reading specs?
Without a doubt, components will never measure the same, and even well designed and well manufactured components of the same model will measure somewhat differently than each other.
Sorry to hear that.
I'm not and I'm happy you can be fooled by your stereo into believing you are listening to live music.
> Staunch non-experiential objectivists do exactly that on a regular basis. :) <
...only because they're patiently waiting for evidence to show up... presumably put together by someone they trust more than they trust themselves. It's a simple waiting game. They're willing to suffer through mediocre sound and cluelessness for as long as it takes, decades if necessary, until someone cares enough to provide them a reason to listen.
will be waiting for the rest of their lives. :)
"I'm still waiting..."
It's not so simple. Every time one plays the same recording it will sound different. This will be the case even if the sound waves were to be identical, because the listener's mind would not be identical. But the sound waves won't be identical because of random noise, changes in air pressure, humidity, temperature, changes of temperature of the electronics, etc...
There there are cases of people hearing "imaginary" differences. This is common. The classical case is the recording engineer who spends ten minutes tweaking the EQ on a recording and making it perfect only to discover that the "bypass" button had been pushed and all his tweaking resulted in imaginary improvements. (I've been there and done that, BTW.)
There is also the problem that measurements are limited in accuracy by the test equipment used and it will be difficult to get reliable measurements unless the test equipment is 10 times better than the equipment under test. That's the case with junk audio components, but not necessarily with high end equipment.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
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: