|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.46.7.90
In Reply to: What do you listen for? posted by Jim Austin on March 22, 2007 at 13:00:29:
Jim,I believe you're asking this question earnestly and so even though I'll probably be mocked for what I'm about to say, I'm going to answer you honestly. I MAINLY listen for a particular point in a particular recording where I can usually hear the difference. That's "IF" I'm trying prove I can hear differences in components to others. However to really know a component's true characteristics I'd like 30-90 days with it.
My favorite song for hearing differences in audio components is Aja, by Steely Dan. Towards the end of the song when the drummer is banging away he stops and clicks his drumsticks together twice. Once I've listened to an audio component's replication of that event and get familiar with it I can almost always differentiate between what component being used. For the sake of this post I consider wires a component as well, ok?
I also use Mark Johnson's CD entitled Deep Focus and the song I use is I Told You So. There's a part where he blows the sax and the music just resonates from deep within the sax, you can almost hear the air coming out of the horn, it seems difficult for most components as they tend to sound different on this.
I also like to use a CD called Jump In The Water by Jump In The Water. The song I use is It's Not for You. This is a great song for vocals. These guys can harmonize plus they're a a few feet behind the man singer who has a great voice himself. So I hear vocals and soundstaging. If you like stringed instruments you'd love these guys they play everything from lute, to mandolin, to guitar & everything in between. Everyone who's heard it loves it and believe it or not there's many of them used, like new on Amazon for $.01 I honestly don't know how to classify their music.
Of course I use some of my jazz ladies for vocals and piano and to listen to soundstage width, depth and height. I don't remember the song now but I used to own a CD by Dean Peer called Ucross. It was only him on a bass, but in one song he must have been sitting and then stood up while playing because you heard the music shift up about 2ft all at once! It was an incredible experience and proved a soundstage had height as well as depth & width.
I've listened to only a few amps and preamps as opposed to a reviewer like yourself. So I'm afraid most of my real testing has been done with things I and my friends can afford --- wires and tubes. Hopefully this answers your questions, if not I'll try to expound.
Thetubeguy1954
====================================================================
If Nature Abhors A Vacuum, Why Does Vacuum Tube Equipment Sound So Damn Good?
Follow Ups:
This is exactly what I was asking for and your description is very clear. I'm going to go try and find that Jump in the Water CD locally.I'm not talking about subjective evaluations--just hearing a change.
My point is that if you know exactly what to look for, and it's real, it's possible to know whether the change occurs or not (if not always easy). You've found a specific, repeatable difference; presumably, that difference is in some way related to the more qualitative things reviewers like to talk about. What exactly is different about the sound of those drumsticks? And how (if at all) does it relate to the subjective differences you notice in long-term listening? See, this is how we close the gap between subjective and objective. You don't have to be in either camp if you can hear repeatable differences of detail and relate them to subjective changes. Exciting stuff.
And by the way, since someone is bound to ask I'll go ahead and answer: I'm not sure I can do what you claim to be able to do (and by phrasing it that way I don't mean to suggest that I don't believe you; I do.) I once had my wife administer a similar test (I even used towels) and was absolutely sure of what I heard. The difference was beyond any question. And I got it exactly wrong. Twice. (I was trying to identify which cable was in the system, not just determine whether they had been switched or not).
> > I've listened to only a few amps and preamps as opposed to a reviewer like yourself. < <
You would probably be surprised.
Thanks again.
Jim,Thanks I appreciate your candor. FYI Jump In The Water is an extremely difficult CD to locate. I've always been happy with my purchases of used CDs on Amazon, so I recommend you buy one of their "like new" copies for $.01. With shipping it will probably be less that $3.00
To be honest with you Jim at one time I didn't even realize there were objectivists & subjectivists. Many years ago when I first started getting serious about audio I believed wires couldn't possibly make a difference. I also believed tubed equipment was an obsolete technology. Yet at the same time I heard differences in amps and preamps etc. I guess I was an objectivist who demanded proof that wires effected the sound or that tubed amps weren't obsolete and easily bettered by solid state amps, but I listened subjectively or however you'd classify one with the beliefs I had at that time. I was quite taken aback when I joined the Asylum and felt animosity expressed by objectivists towards anyone who listened subjectively. Up till then in all my experience I had never met anyone who didn't believe audio components couldn't or shouldn't sound differently but I digress.
Getting back to when I listen for differences between components. When I first detected differences in the sound of the 2 drumsticks struck together I attempted to determine which I believed was the most realistic replication. When I made my choice later that same day I actually went and bought a pair of drumsticks to hit together and compare. IMHO what I selected as being the more accurate replication was indeed just that. What really surprised me is just how dynamically limited most audio systems are! I needed to hit the sticks quite a bit less hard than the drummer on Aja or else it was too damn loud.
Jim you mentioned when you attempted to detect differences in two IC's you were wrong both times. It's my contention that when people test to hear differences they listen to way too much info. Testing one's hearing acuity & listening to music are two completely different functions. Hence they need to be done completely differently. Try doing what I did concentrate on something simple like the drumsticks in the end of Aja being hit together. You want to listen for about 30 secs when testing, it way to easy to overload yourself with too much info. I honestly believe, and I AM NOT trying to toot my own horn, that I can teach ANYONE who doesn't have a hearing disability, and who truly wants to learn, how to differentiate between audio components withing an hour or so.
In any event these days I'm a subjectivist who believes there should be a measureable reason for everything we hear. The main problem I have with objectivists, at least the vocal objectivists here on PHP, is that they believe todays measurements are sufficient and complete within themselves. Then in order to make their religous dogma work they need to come up with statements like this idiotic remark from Peter Aczel "...a "properly designed" amplifier has no sound of its own." Thus following their belief if an amp does indeed sound different that simply means it's not "properly designed"! I often wonder how they'd react if an amp was reviewed by Aczel that sounded completely different from all his previously accepted "properly designed" amps. Being that this new amp sounded different from all Peter's previously accepted "properly designed" amps would mean it couldn't possibly be a "properly designed" amp. But what if this new not "properly designed" amp sounded almost indistinguishable from live music? Would they still reject it as being not being "properly designed"? That would be an interesting dilemma no?
The reality is today's accepted audio measurements do not correlate sufficinetly enough with what we hear! That belief on my part doesn't mean I think all measurements are useless as more than one objectivist here has suggested. Rather it means I realize that scientists and audio manufacturers haven't yet discovered exactly what traits in live music the human ear/brain uses to determine it is live music and not recorded. Once these measurements are discovered and implemented, we'll close the gap between all subjectivists and objectivists who honestly want to know the truth about whats happening in audio. Unfortunately those who simply want to be correct at all costs will find someway to claim these new measurements are bogus or wrong...
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
...as I'm always looking for objective evidence of change.One track I like to use for this is "Symbol In My Driveway" from Jack Johnson's "On and On" title. The first 30 seconds or so of this track is all I usually need to spot resolution and soundstage changes. Sometimes change is subtle and requires repeated listenings to determine if ANYthing worthwhile occurred. Other times, changes can be quite dramatic.
Geoff Kait's Brilliant Pebbles accessory situated on ceramic tile 'tables' in the 'right' locations is an example of dramatic. Thought I'd squeeze in a little advertisement for Geoff here. ;-)
but in a most uncareful way, wellfed. Don't worry you are in no danger of becoming a "scientist" :).
I'm quite happy with my mere scientist status. So I don't do DBT's; whoopdedoo! You quote/unquote scientists can have them, and take your so-called placebo effect with you. ;-)
"I'm quite happy with my mere scientist status"
The scientist is a lover of truth for the very love of truth itself, wherever it may lead. — Luther Burbank (1849-1926), American plant breeder, botanist, naturalist.Not the other kind. ;-)
Note especially the 'wherever it may lead' portion of Burbank's quote. The scientist doesn't control that part if they're looking for truth. It takes a little effort, but it's a fun and rewarding pastime.
"Not the other kind. ;-)"Sorry, Wellfed, there is no other kind of scientist...at least not early in their career. Later with age all people become more conservative but that doesn't mean the new ideas don't get through! Just more likely that the new idea is really something good and hype.
"Note especially the 'wherever it may lead' portion of Burbank's quote. The scientist doesn't control that part if they're looking for truth. It takes a little effort, but it's a fun and rewarding pastime.
"Again, I just don't think you get this really. Whereever it may lead is coming from the fact that often an unexpected result of an experiment is more interesting than if you get an expected result. However; once an anamalous observation is made, every effort is then given to make sure that it wasn't a failure, bias, or artifact in the experiment itself first, then to try to reproduce it (under CONTROLLED conditions). If it is reproducible under one set of conditions then what about other conditions. Determining the boundaries as it were. If it passes these tests then an attempt to determine what it means can be undertaken. This is what "whereever it may lead" means.
So while you have the intent of exploration you are not really approaching it with the skeptical mindset of a true scientist. Of course they too get excited by new results...and then they sober up and find out if the observation was really the result of something new or if it was a flaw in the experiment somehow. Face value is not an accepted aspect of exprimental science.
...while there's an emergency going on.We better turn our attention to the science used in the following post.
Looks like libel to me, but I'm not a lawyer.
I don't follow your conclusion at all.In what way is "Scientific Method losing ground" ?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: