Audible differences between 2-channel s/s amps and AVRs, when operated below clipping? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 127 Old 07-12-2013, 05:50 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 451 Post(s)
Liked: 1064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Did I miss something?

Sorry to be blunt again, but evidently.

...but apparently you can't say what.

I'd write a reasoned response to you post if there were any actual content....
arnyk is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 127 Old 07-12-2013, 05:55 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 451 Post(s)
Liked: 1064
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

[

Please define "good" and "modern"

A good amplifier is one whose noise and distortion of all kinds is not audible. A modern amplifier is one that is typical of good engineering practice of the past 10-20 years.
Quote:
What has fundamentally changed in class A/B amplifier design, design theory, or manufacture in the last decade that would turn Crown's conclusions on their head?

None needed, since they made no claims about audibility.
arnyk is online now  
post #93 of 127 Old 07-12-2013, 06:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jon Lane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,176
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

...but apparently you can't say what.

I'd write a reasoned response to you post if there were any actual content....

The content was linked, Arny.

Oh, and when you get a chance, kindly reply to my question: Concerning what some say we can and cannot hear, is this a categorical science? In other words, one not expressed in the conditional generalities we see in this thread. It very well may be; I don't know.

Jon Lane
The Audio Insider
Jon Lane is offline  
post #94 of 127 Old 07-12-2013, 06:00 PM
Senior Member
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

[

Please define "good" and "modern"

A good amplifier is one whose noise and distortion of all kinds is not audible. A modern amplifier is one that is typical of good engineering practice of the past 10-20 years.
Quote:
What has fundamentally changed in class A/B amplifier design, design theory, or manufacture in the last decade that would turn Crown's conclusions on their head?

None needed, since they made no claims about audibility.

They made comparative statements about the relative quality of bass notes. The distinct implication is that it is audible. Otherwise why reference something that one can't hear in any of their products? Were they advertising a flea circus?

Also, who gets to define what is and is not "audible" for other listeners without actually consulting them? You?

Arcam AVR300, Panny BDT-500, Toshiba SD-9200 CD transport, Vizio XVT 55" LED/LCD (full direct-backlit w/ local dimming), Arx A5 & A3rx-c Mains, Arx A2rx-c center, HSU VTF-15h, BJC ten white w/ ultrasonically welded connectors.
BufordTJustice is offline  
post #95 of 127 Old 07-12-2013, 06:19 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 451 Post(s)
Liked: 1064
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

[

Please define "good" and "modern"

A good amplifier is one whose noise and distortion of all kinds is not audible. A modern amplifier is one that is typical of good engineering practice of the past 10-20 years.
Quote:
What has fundamentally changed in class A/B amplifier design, design theory, or manufacture in the last decade that would turn Crown's conclusions on their head?

None needed, since they made no claims about audibility.

They made comparative statements about the relative quality of bass notes.

If the amp's source impedance is sufficiently high like we see in some SETs then there are of course are audible variations in frequency response. That is very uncommon in good modern SS amps. If Crown is implying that their amps have uniquely exceptional damping factor that has audible benefits then they are claiming falsely.
Quote:
Also, who gets to define what is and is not "audible" for other listeners? You?

The industry standard for determining audibility is a time synched, level matched, double blind listening test. There are several recommended variations on this, but BS1116 is quite complete specifying the listening environment and listener training.

Examples:

Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30 No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338.

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=3839

being a classic if not the classic example, and

A updated version:

http://img2.tapuz.co.il/forums/64906910.pdf

ITU Recommendation BS 1116-1 being another.

http://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-1-199710-I!!PDF-E.pdf

You would know these things if you had done your homework. ;-)
arnyk is online now  
post #96 of 127 Old 07-12-2013, 06:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
bo130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

Also, who gets to define what is and is not "audible" for other listeners without actually consulting them? You?

Someone can say they like the sound of any given component.

Question becomes when they compare - and then when they say there's an audible difference between component a and component b. Which is what this thread title is about.

At that point - how do you compare?

Sighted - when you know which component is being used?

And in that case, don't you feel there's at least a potential for bias?

And if there's a potential for bias, how much value would you put in such a test - versus, say one where one is totally blind, when you are doing nothing more than listening, period.

If the differences between similar component a and similar component b are obvious, and if you feel you can easily discern them in a blind test, then are you "game" for proving as such?
bo130 is offline  
post #97 of 127 Old 07-12-2013, 06:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 451 Post(s)
Liked: 1064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

...but apparently you can't say what.

I'd write a reasoned response to you post if there were any actual content....

The content was linked, Arny.

There are no links in post 54.
arnyk is online now  
post #98 of 127 Old 07-12-2013, 06:26 PM
Senior Member
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

[

Please define "good" and "modern"

A good amplifier is one whose noise and distortion of all kinds is not audible. A modern amplifier is one that is typical of good engineering practice of the past 10-20 years.
Quote:
What has fundamentally changed in class A/B amplifier design, design theory, or manufacture in the last decade that would turn Crown's conclusions on their head?

None needed, since they made no claims about audibility.

They made comparative statements about the relative quality of bass notes.

Based on what?

The 1971 paper says on page 3: 'We made no effort to do A/B testing, "

One of the problems with staking one's life on a 1971 paper ( what, 42 year old technology?) is that we learned quite a bit about how to do reliable listening tests since then.
Quote:
The distinct implication is that is is audible. Otherwise why reference something that one can't hear. Were they advertising a flea circus?

More or less.
Quote:
Also, who gets to define what is and is not "audible" for other listeners? You?

The industry standard for determining audibility is a time synched, level matched, double blind test.

Examples:

Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30 No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338.

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=3839

being a classic if not the classic example, and

A updated version:

http://img2.tapuz.co.il/forums/64906910.pdf

ITU Recommendation BS 1116-1 being another.

http://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-1-199710-I!!PDF-E.pdf

You would know these things if you had done your homework. ;-)

I do know them. I'm simply not a robot and I use my own cognition to arrive at a different conclusion...backed by ten years of my own real world experience. Again, you have not address the issues I raised about ALL DBTs.

We use humans....that is the "flaw" and why a control is not possible.

Also, please address the logical conundrum whereby YOU, Arny, can pass judgement and make a definitive statement about the vast majority of listeners, on the vast majority of currently available solid state amplifiers, without having tested the vast majority of ANY OF THEM?

With the huge variability within the human body itself and our ability to hear running the full spectrum from 15hz to 25k hearing ability to those who cannot hear better than the fidelity of modern FM radio? None of the DBTs make any reasonable effort to address this issue...nor do they even begin to wrangle with the presuppositions that are natural for a human undergoing a structured test. Again, how to you reconcile those issues with any DBT?

Address these issues:

"I'm not willing to agree that, outside of a DBT, nobody can truly asses any amplifier or piece of equipment. Also, if you truly have studied psychology, you'll know that there are inherent expectations of test takers (that vary per taker), which influence the outcome of the test itself. For instance does the test taker (whether instructed to do so or not) presuppose that their PURPOSE or GOAL is to detect change or to verify that there is none? That has an enormous effect on the outcome, going by your own logic. If a DBT participant is predisposed to look for a lack of difference (substantial similarity), then they will be overly likely to find this result (by your own logic). Conversely, if one is predisposed (whether instructed to do so or not) to search for differences, then they will be likely to find differences when there are none (again, going by the logic you just submitted).

The problem is that you are marketing the idea that we, somehow have overcome all human biases just because a DBT is used. THAT is snakeoil."

Also, from the "scope" paragraph: of the ITU paper:

"This Recommendation is intended for use in the assessment of systems which introduce impairments so small as to be
undetectable without rigorous control of the experimental conditions and appropriate statistical analysis. If used for
systems that introduce relatively large and easily detectable impairments, it leads to excessive expenditure of time and
effort and may also lead to less reliable results than a simpler test.
This Recommendation forms the base reference for
the other Recommendations, which may contain additional special conditions or relaxations of the requirements included
in this Annex."

So, even this paper states that a DBT can be INEFFECTIVE for differences that are considered "easily detectable". What threshold establishes "easily detectable" from "not easily detectable"? I could do this all day. The conclusions drawn from DBT rest strongly on many presuppositions about "listener expertise".

To even begin to argue that a DBT removes human biases from the equation is nearing fraud. The paper, though it serves to advocate for DBT, is littered with dependencies upon unknown variables in order to draw its conclusion that DBT is the "best" way.

Arcam AVR300, Panny BDT-500, Toshiba SD-9200 CD transport, Vizio XVT 55" LED/LCD (full direct-backlit w/ local dimming), Arx A5 & A3rx-c Mains, Arx A2rx-c center, HSU VTF-15h, BJC ten white w/ ultrasonically welded connectors.
BufordTJustice is offline  
post #99 of 127 Old 07-12-2013, 06:51 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 451 Post(s)
Liked: 1064
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

55 pages by Doug Self that clearly demonstrate that there is no "standard solid state amplifier". Every level of design has decisions that must be made based on cost, performance, size, heat, etc. These decisions dictate differences in performance in virtually every part of the amplifier.

http://www.sg-acoustics.ch/analogue_audio/power_amplifiers/pdf/audio_power_amp_design_comments.pdf


An important point needs to be understood. While Douglas Self deserves praise on the grounds that he has isolated and promulgated any number of worthwhile technical refinements, some that literally cost nothing to implement and all that involve reasonable cost and little difficulty, they all have negligible sonic benefit.

A slight variaton on the Lin circuit

http://www.semiconductormuseum.com/Transistors/RCA/OralHistories/Lin/Lin_Page7.htm



copied unaltered from a early-1970s RCA transistor manual was found to be sonically blameless. If memory serves it contains none of Self's refinements.


Also please see: http://www.swtpc.com/mholley/PopularElectronics/Oct1970/PE_Oct1970.htm
Quote:
Reading the paper does not inspire confidence in the argument that "all 'modern' class A/B amplifiers, operating in their linear range, not clipping, with similar output power figures, and playing reasonable recordings, perform so similarly as to make no difference to a listener".

Also, I love how the qualifications keep piling-on. Moving the goalposts much?

The usual list of qualifications have existed in writing for decades. It's just a matter of doing adequate academic research.


"Negligible sonic benefit" according to whom?

"Sonically blameless" by whom?

Both conclusions are based on the fact that this old chestnut can not be differentiated from a straight wire in a proper listening test.
Quote:
I think that you have not specifically rebutted a single point I've made in my last post.

I think you have completely disrespected me by not doing a reasonable job of reading the reference I cited and linked.


"The usual list of qualifications have existed in writing for decades. It's just a matter of doing adequate academic research."
But not for the purposes of this discussion and within this context. Your point is irrelevant.

The facts still stand that many of the pioneers of modern amplifier design do not share the view that all non-clipped SS amplifiers of similar output are sonically indistinguishable from each other.
[/quote]

It is well known that good listening tests were not the rule when the pioneers of modern amplifier design did much of their work.
Quote:
And they are electrical engineers by trade and profession. So, to reiterate, I am not alone in my assertions.

Yes, you might be wrong, you are not necessarily properly and fully informed about this topic, and you have a lot of people who are in the same sinking boat as you are. You talk very much like someone who has zero practical experience with proper listening tests.


Quote:
Doug Self, Walt Jung, John Atwater, Bob Carver....what do they know?


Doug Self is the only one on your list who IMO seems to be current with modern amplifier technology.

http://www.douglas-self.com/ampins/pseudo/subjectv.htm

"When the only 'results' are vague subjective impressions, the danger is clearly much greater, no matter how absolute the integrity of the experimenter. Thus in psychological work great care is necessary in the use of impartial observers, double-blind techniques, and rigorous statistical tests for significance. The vast majority of Subjectivist writings wholly ignore these precautions, with predictable results. In a few cases properly controlled listening tests been done, and at the time of writing all have resulted in different amplifiers sounding indistinguishable. I believe the conclusion is inescapable that experimenter expectancy has played a dominant role in the growth of Subjectivism."

Quote:
I see no specific rebuttal to the enormous body of work that they have done, both in the production of actual products or the analysis of theory and design they put forth (in rigorous detail for virtually every part of a SS power amplifier). They certainly don't subscribe to any version of "most non clipped solid state amplifiers, operated linearly, sound indistinguishable for most listeners".

False claim. I subscribe to the above with a few qualifications.
Quote:
Or is that the most updated qualified question? I'm trying to keep up with the changes....

That often happens when someone tries to speak authoritatively without bothering to obtain the usual education.
Quote:
So, to sum so far, my POV creates room for people to objectively think/believe in the OP's premise (or the current version of same).

Opening the door so wide that all sorts of weird stuff blows in is hardly an adequate proof of correctness.
Quote:
That is possible that, to some people, there is no difference. However, Arny's and Beave's articulation is that what I am positing is SIMPLY FALSE and that it CANNOT BE TRUE.

Since your alleged rebuttal involves dismissing evidence that you apparently don't like for no logical reason...
Quote:
Their statement is to the absolute exclusion of any alternative. They apparently feel comfortable speaking on behalf of virtually every mass market consumer...for amplifiers that they have neither heard nor bench tested...stating with CERTAINTY that most mass market SS amps sound indistinguishable from eachother.

That has something to do with actually testing dozens of different amplifiers and reading technical reports and reviewing the designs of 100s or others. Try it sometime, it may change your thiking.
Quote:
While I am basing my opinion on direct personal experience,

Apparently based on egregiously flawed listening evaluations.
Quote:
the others are making assertions based on things that simply have not been quantified or tested.

False claim.
Quote:
.and then claiming that I am incorrect for "not producing measurements or research". I am claiming that some phenomena is possible and that difference can be present for a listener (UPA-500 vs $400-$500 AVR). Arny is claiming that my claim is impossible.

False claim. I am saying that it is unlikely based on the limited evidence that is available.
Quote:
Am I really the only who sees that this is dripping with irony?

Given that you are seeing other than what is written...
Quote:
What percentage of listeners and equipment of that available for sale would he have to DBT in order to support his hypothesis.

It seems like a tiny but well-randomized sample would suffice. Our experience is that without cherry-picking samples we can grab 100 amps, do some proper DBTs and tie any listening panel we gather and train in knots.
Quote:
A absolute claim CANNOT BE SUPPORTED BY A POLL...a sampling of the actual population.

Your ignorance of the publicly available relevant literature is noted.
Quote:
What Arny needs to even begin to support his claim approaches a CENSUS of virtually all mass market SS amplifiers, running non clipped, linearly, playing reasonable material and interplaying with....oh....wait....which loudspeakers (with their wildly variable, never-purely-resistive designs that interact with each amplifier in a different way because they ARE different from eachother)?

The use of properly selected reliatively small samples of very large populations is generally accepted by just about everybody in just about every industry.
Quote:
But I'm supposed to swallow the pill that most people hear zero difference and that they are fooled by their own desire for a sonic improvement and glazed-over consumerist tendencies?

Easy to demonstrate. Disbelief of the strong effects of various technical and personal biases indicates a lack of experience with properly-designed experiments.

Most consumers do sighted comparisons of non-level matched equipment with program material that is constantly varying. There are almost too many biases in this methodology to list them all.
arnyk is online now  
post #100 of 127 Old 07-12-2013, 07:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 451 Post(s)
Liked: 1064
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

[

Please define "good" and "modern"

A good amplifier is one whose noise and distortion of all kinds is not audible. A modern amplifier is one that is typical of good engineering practice of the past 10-20 years.
Quote:
What has fundamentally changed in class A/B amplifier design, design theory, or manufacture in the last decade that would turn Crown's conclusions on their head?

None needed, since they made no claims about audibility.

They made comparative statements about the relative quality of bass notes.

Based on what?

The 1971 paper says on page 3: 'We made no effort to do A/B testing, "

One of the problems with staking one's life on a 1971 paper ( what, 42 year old technology?) is that we learned quite a bit about how to do reliable listening tests since then.
Quote:
The distinct implication is that is is audible. Otherwise why reference something that one can't hear. Were they advertising a flea circus?

More or less.
Quote:
Also, who gets to define what is and is not "audible" for other listeners? You?

The industry standard for determining audibility is a time synched, level matched, double blind test.

Examples:

Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30 No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338.

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=3839

being a classic if not the classic example, and

A updated version:

http://img2.tapuz.co.il/forums/64906910.pdf

ITU Recommendation BS 1116-1 being another.

http://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-1-199710-I!!PDF-E.pdf

You would know these things if you had done your homework. ;-)

I do know them.

Your comments below tell a different story. For example you don't know that BS 1116 is just a tutorial and makes no attempt to justify DBTs.
Quote:
I'm simply not a robot and I use my own cognition to arrive at a different conclusion...backed by ten years of my own real world experience. Again, you have not address the issues I raised about ALL DBTs.

I'm not a robot either. If the question would be answered if the questioner were as familiar with the topic as he thinks then I don't waste time answering.
Quote:
We use humans....that is the "flaw" and why a control is not possible.

Since all listening tests employ humans and according to you any test involving humans is flawed to the point of uselessness why do you cite the results of any listening tests?
Quote:
Also, please address the logical conundrum whereby YOU, Arny, can pass judgement and make a definitive statement about the vast majority of listeners, on the vast majority of currently available solid state amplifiers, without having tested the vast majority of ANY OF THEM?

You seem to be unware of the use of sampling to discern the properties of a larger population. Apparently according to you we need to crash test most of the cars we build, maybe half of those built of every model of every brand????

Quote:
With the huge variability within the human body itself and our ability to hear running the full spectrum from 15hz to 25k hearing ability to those who cannot hear better than the fidelity of modern FM radio? None of the DBTs make any reasonable effort to address this issue...

You obviously didn't read section 3.2.1 of BS 1116-1 http://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-1-199710-I!!PDF-E.pdf

"Pre-screening procedures, include methods such as audiometric tests, selection of subjects based on their previous
experience and performance in previous tests and elimination of subjects based on a statistical analysis of pre-tests. The
training procedure might be used as a tool for pre-screening

The major argument for introducing a pre-screening technique is to increase the efficiency of the listening test. This must
however be balanced against the risk of limiting the relevance of the result too much."


Address these issues:

"I'm not willing to agree that, outside of a DBT, nobody can truly asses any amplifier or piece of equipment.
[/quote]

Mission impossible. I can't force you to believe a certain thing or apparently even read and comprehend a fairly short document I linked on the web.
Quote:
Also, if you truly have studied psychology, you'll know that there are inherent expectations of test takers (that vary per taker), which influence the outcome of the test itself. For instance does the test taker (whether instructed to do so or not) presuppose that their PURPOSE or GOAL is to detect change or to verify that there is none?

You apparently want us to believe that there is some mystery about whether or not BS 1116-1 was created with some purpose other than detecting changes?

LOL!

Quote:
That has an enormous effect on the outcome, going by your own logic. If a DBT participant is predisposed to look for a lack of difference (substantial similarity), then they will be overly likely to find this result (by your own logic).

More evidence that you have no practical experience with proper listening tests. No reasonable person would go to all the trouble of setting up and running a proper listening test unless they were motivated by a desire to find an audible difference. One of the things one does with pre-screening listeners is maximize the efficiency of the test - IOW maximize its accuracy and sensitivity. You obviously did not seriously look at BS 1116-1 based on what you have not learned from it.
Quote:
The problem is that you are marketing the idea that we, somehow have overcome all human biases just because a DBT is used. THAT is snakeoil."

Again more evidence that you have not perceived the clear meaning of BS 1116-1. Doing a DBT is just one part of what it describes and recommends. It is implicitly saying that it takes more than just a DBT. You are denying this which you could only reasonbly do if you had not understood this big idea.
Quote:
Also, from the "scope" paragraph: of the ITU paper:

"This Recommendation is intended for use in the assessment of systems which introduce impairments so small as to be
undetectable without rigorous control of the experimental conditions and appropriate statistical analysis. If used for
systems that introduce relatively large and easily detectable impairments, it leads to excessive expenditure of time and
effort and may also lead to less reliable results than a simpler test.
This Recommendation forms the base reference for
the other Recommendations, which may contain additional special conditions or relaxations of the requirements included
in this Annex."

So, even this paper states that a DBT can be INEFFECTIVE for differences that are considered "easily detectable".

No, it says that doing a test per BS 1116-1 can be inefficient IOW "Excessive expenditure of time"..
Quote:
What threshold establishes "easily detectable" from "not easily detectable"?

Experience. If you had even one iota of practical experience with reliable listening tests...
Quote:
I could do this all day.

Waste our time picking nits and demonstrating poor reading comprehension and lack of experience with reliable listening tests? I think so but I wouldn't be as proud of it as you seem to be.
Quote:
The conclusions drawn from DBT rest strongly on many presuppositions about "listener expertise".

...which you would understand if you were conversant with the literature and technology of doing reliable listening tests.
Quote:
To even begin to argue that a DBT removes human biases from the equation is nearing fraud.

Prove it. You are arguing with something that is generally accepted in many area of technology. Do DBTs remove all biases? No. Do they remove them perfectly or at no cost? NO. Are they far better than whatever is in second? Seems like!
Quote:
The paper, though it serves to advocate for DBT, is littered with dependencies upon unknown variables in order to draw its conclusion that DBT is the "best" way.

You completely misunderstand the purpose of the paper. It is a tutorial in how to do a certain kind of listening test. It is not a white paper advocating the use of DBTs. It presumes that the reader has for some reason decided to a a good listening test.

I referenced it to try to educate you so that you could at least make sense when you rant and rave about DBTs. It appears that you can't properly comprehend it or even just its purpose.

"Buford", I believe that only a few minutes elapsed between my posting of the first reference to BS 1116-1 and your reply to that post. First time I read BS 1116-1 I spent several hours analyzing it, and I invented ABX and was already familiar with the tools and procedures contained in BS 1116 for about a decade. It took that long for me to see if they had correctly chosen and fit the pieces that I already knew.

I think they did a nice job of coming up with a good "How to do it" tutorial. That is all it is - a tutorial. It seems like in your haste and rush to judgement you've completely misunderstood its purpose and intent.
arnyk is online now  
post #101 of 127 Old 07-13-2013, 12:52 AM
Senior Member
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 33
You have equated effort with success. BS 1116-1 is at risk of being unreliable with regard to results according to the ITU paper, not “inefficient” as you stated. I even quoted that for you. Come on, Arny.

The purpose of BS 1116-1 is to afford predictive value to the information provided by the evaluations outlined therein (and to help others replicate the process). I am clearly stating that no generalizations can be made about the entirety of consumer solid state devices as constrained by the context of our argument. You are advocating via BS 1116-1 that results stemming from that procedure can have repeatable, predictive value with regard to other people and products that HAVE NOT YET BEEN TESTED. I disagree with this. Period. Outright.

I understand what’s in the paper, Arny. It is amazingly shortsighted of you to assume that a) I was not previously acquainted with said paper and b) I understand but simply DISAGREE. Assuming that disagreement denotes a lack of understanding prevents proper discourse and is narcissistic. Further, a review beyond the basic testing procedures is not germane to this conversation. I am familiar with the ABX standards you have worked on. I still disagree with you. That does not denote ignorance.

However, for my points, you have not provided a direct rebuttal STILL. I am waiting. And to bolster my questions, I will dogpile more questions…this time from more scholars (some medical).

Experimenter Bias, sample size, insufficient predictive power, etc. They’re all there.
http://www.pni.org/psychopharmacology/doubleblind/DoubleBlindNeppe.pdf

Limitations of all DB studies:
http://www.pni.org/psychopharmacology/doubleblind/DoubleBlindNeppe.pdf

Problems with double blind placebo studies:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/looking-in-the-cultural-mirror/201011/the-trouble-double-blind-placebo-studies

Now, Arny, if you can get past the realization that you might need to adjust your paradigm, these documents will hold great value for you. If you don’t have Lexus Nexus or an equivalent, you might only be able to read the abstract (which is enough to convey my point), but this is a perfect summation of why your pet paper may need to be reconsidered in its entirety:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11377113

This, also:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/~wp276/limits.ht

And let us not forget participant expectancies:
http://ctj.sagepub.com/content/7/3/246.abstract

Consider that DBT isn’t the only way. RCT works even more rigorously to prevent bias:
http://www.stfm.org/fmhub/fm2007/February/Anthony132.pdf

I’m afraid that you’re having extreme difficulty appreciating the entirety of the forest in spite of some trees that you have planted. You’re entirely missing my logical and practical points as demonstrated by your ongoing and adamant refusal to directly address ANY OF MY LOGICAL POINTS about DBT. So, do I need to repost what I’ve already posted THREE TIMES for you to understand that leading clinical researchers are stating that double blind tests are not as definitive as once thought?

I am entertained by your efforts to impugn my intelligence. However, I have presented you with information on evaluation biases THAT IS NOT CONTAINED within or ADRESSED BY any document you have thus far produced for our consideration (including information you have authored). I can give you the new information, but I cannot understand it for you. If you are truly concerned with accuracy, you’ll consider the information I have provided, that you have not addressed.

As far as not reading material presented, you have clearly made no effort to even consider Mr. Jung’s treatise on amplifier design (just the chapter I posted was 210 pages). It tramples on your assertions. You can hide behind your DB trial ABX procedures….I can’t keep you from doing that. However, clinging bitterly to your deeply-invested conclusions does not help you or anybody else in achieving your stated goal of accuracy in testing. In fact, as the scholars in the above links have demonstrated, there are fundamental flaws which they describe in the basic procedures of DBT with regard to eliminating biases. And this damning indictment of your position comes from several people who AGREE with your premise that bias can be substantively removed from the process to a degree that will provide effectively neutral and accurate results!

Also, since you keep referencing my education, I’m going to make an educated guess that you think I have no background in this area, no? Please tell me about my background, since you’ve already taken liberties by inferring I am lacking in education. Are you simply relying on my disagreement to come to this conclusion about me? I’ve noticed that this is the basis for many of your arguments on this forum. What other descriptor for this is there than “name calling”?

Further, I think that you have failed to consider that a large portion of what I do in my day job is employ the basic principles of a DBT to suspect identification prior to filing charges, in order to prevent bias and enhance successful prosecution of my agency’s cases. The concept and practical procedure of SBTs and DBTs are certainly not foreign to me. They are deeply rooted not just is social sciences, but also in jurisprudence.

“I think they did a nice job of coming up with a good “How to do it” tutorial.”

I’m sure you think that.


So, Arny, It's been real. It's been fun. It's even been real fun for fleeting moments here and there. BUT, at this point you're refusing to address flaws in the fundamentals of all DBTs and if we can't discuss that, then this thread is basically just two divergent monologues from here on out. I already understand what you're saying (we're talking DBT's here, NOT ROCKET SCIENCE) and you're thus far unwilling to address the flaws that I've revealed in your methods.

If you don't want to talk about that, as opposed to how great your DBT's are and how everybody is on your side, then this conversation is effectively over. You decide. I may go back and forth with you, but at that point, the debate is over until you decide get back on-topic.

Arcam AVR300, Panny BDT-500, Toshiba SD-9200 CD transport, Vizio XVT 55" LED/LCD (full direct-backlit w/ local dimming), Arx A5 & A3rx-c Mains, Arx A2rx-c center, HSU VTF-15h, BJC ten white w/ ultrasonically welded connectors.
BufordTJustice is offline  
post #102 of 127 Old 07-13-2013, 01:21 AM
Senior Member
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Also, it seems that you and Mr. Atkinson have met before.

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/hifi2005/atkinsonkrueger.html

http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
(with audio recording of the debate)

Well, you've been at this for quite some time, haven't you?
http://www.avguide.com/forums/the-difference-between-medical-dbts-and-audio-dbts

A Physician (Keith W) raised the same questions I have and, despite quoting him a lot in your response, you directly addressed virtually none of his pertinent criticisms. You literally danced around all of them and them went on a diatribe much like you've done here.

I'm done wasting my time, Arny. Ante up with an actual rebuttal on-point or I'm done here. Keith's entire first post is essentially UNADDRESSED in terms of the questions he raises (and amazingly similar to the criticisms I have highlighted). Amazing. Your M.O. hasn't changed one bit; you ignore the salient points and RANT.

Arcam AVR300, Panny BDT-500, Toshiba SD-9200 CD transport, Vizio XVT 55" LED/LCD (full direct-backlit w/ local dimming), Arx A5 & A3rx-c Mains, Arx A2rx-c center, HSU VTF-15h, BJC ten white w/ ultrasonically welded connectors.
BufordTJustice is offline  
post #103 of 127 Old 07-13-2013, 03:13 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 451 Post(s)
Liked: 1064
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

You have equated effort with success.

No quote of me saying anything like that provided. I suspect you pulled this out of the air some place. But, it is common sense that a certain amount of effort is required for success. I will accept guilt for saying this, proudly!
Quote:
BS 1116-1 is at risk of being unreliable with regard to results according to the ITU paper, not “inefficient” as you stated. I even quoted that for you. Come on, Arny.

Actually, BS 1116-1 says and I quote:

"This Recommendation is intended for use in the assessment of systems which introduce impairments so small as to be
undetectable without rigorous control of the experimental conditions and appropriate statistical analysis. If used for
systems that introduce relatively large and easily detectable impairments, it leads to excessive expenditure of time and
effort and may also lead to less reliable results than a simpler test"


BS 1116-1 actually says both things. It says that "For systems that introduce relatively large and easily detectable impairments" it "...leads to excessive expenditure of time...." (inefficient) and "...may also lead to less reliable results than a simpler test". Buford. you apparently still don't do not properly comprehend its meaning. Since this is right near the beginning, it is reasonable to believe that you understand the later more complex parts of BS 1116-1 even less.
Quote:
The purpose of BS 1116-1 is to afford predictive value to the information provided by the evaluations outlined therein (and to help others replicate the process).

One word: Science.
Quote:
I am clearly stating that no generalizations can be made about the entirety of consumer solid state devices as constrained by the context of our argument.

It is true Buford that without admitting your past error you are finally making a partial correct statement about BS 1116-1 I still had to correct you.
Quote:
You are advocating via BS 1116-1 that results stemming from that procedure can have repeatable, predictive value with regard to other people and products that HAVE NOT YET BEEN TESTED.

I am saying that we have tested enough audio gear and obtained consistent results to be able to make a few generalizations about audio amplifiers in general. I personally have not done a listening test that conforms well to BS 1116-1. A person that I know named James Johnson (well known in audio, retired head technical executive for DTS Inc) has had access to the facilities required and has tested a number of amplifiers using procedures corresponding to BS 1116-1 and generally agrees with what I have posted on this thread about amplifier sound. BTW while I don't claim to be able to read minds, it is probable that the simpler procedure that was in the minds of its author was ABX.
Quote:
I disagree with this. Period. Outright.

Well, I do too. You made it up and kinda sort got it right enough except for the part where you don't seem to accept the idea that we can test sample audio gear and make reasonable statements about it all. How many amplifiers have you done DBTs of? I know I've tested 10 units over a period of 3 days or so for the most intensive tests I ever did. Usually the ABX amplifier tests I've been active in involved 2-4 different units. The results were consistent across all tests over a period of over 20 years.
Quote:
I understand what’s in the paper, Arny.

I've shown strong evidence otherwise, obvious errors you seem to have made and never taken responsibility for or explained. First you mischaracterized BS 1116-1 as "an advocate for DBT" http://www.avsforum.com/t/1480939/audible-differences-between-2-channel-s-s-amps-and-avrs-when-operated-below-clipping/90#post_23522954 . Then you mischaracterized an introductory comment about is use vis-a-vis simpler methodologies. And we still haven't got into the body of the paper! This is just the introduction.
Quote:
It is amazingly shortsighted of you to assume that a) I was not previously acquainted with said paper

Unrebutted evidence is what it is.

Quote:
and b) I understand but simply DISAGREE.

False claim - Buford you have posted plenty of evidence that you don't even understand the introduction to BS 1116-1.
Quote:
Assuming that disagreement denotes a lack of understanding prevents proper discourse and is narcissistic.

No such assumption has been made. Errors have been made Buford and your lack of willingness to accept responsibility for them "prevents proper discourse and is narcissistic".
Quote:
Further, a review beyond the basic testing procedures is not germane to this conversation. I am familiar with the ABX standards you have worked on. I still disagree with you. That does not denote ignorance.

Strictly speaking there is no ABX standard as such. Please post a link to it if you have evidence that it exists.
arnyk is online now  
post #104 of 127 Old 07-13-2013, 03:28 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 451 Post(s)
Liked: 1064
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

Also, it seems that you and Mr. Atkinson have met before.

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/hifi2005/atkinsonkrueger.html

http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
(with audio recording of the debate)

Well, you've been at this for quite some time, haven't you?

I invented ABX for audio:

http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx.htm

"May 7, 1977 SMWTMS did the first ever audio double blind subjective listening tests. An argument over the audibility of differences between amplifiers at a club meeting in November 1976 resulted in an agreement that a double blind test could settle the question. Just six months later, Arny Krueger gave a lecture on his design of a double blind comparator and the first three double blind tests were done. The results include the first three listed in the Power Amplifier Comparison Table in the data. Thus we credit Arny Krueger and his opponent in the argument, Bern Muller, as the inventors of the ABX Comparator. The agreement to create a company to manufacture comparators was informally made the following summer."

Clearly Buford you are just learning this which casts additional doubt on your claims to a decade of experience and well-seasoned expertise.


That has been known for decades. One of the members of the original ca. 1970s ABX team was a medical researcher (Dr. Muller of Wayne State). By coincidence I will be visiting his house and meeting with him later on today.
Quote:
A Physician (Keith W) raised the same questions I have and, despite quoting him a lot in your response, you directly addressed virtually none of his pertinent criticisms. You literally danced around all of them and them went on a diatribe much like you've done here.

I don't recall recently responding to any posts from a Keith W.

The forum search tool finds no such posts on this thread.

Yet another mystery post like the claim about a non-existent reference.

I confess that I entertain myself by dancing around questions that really miss the point and show evidence of sufficient pomposity and arrogance. ;-)
Quote:
I'm done wasting my time, Arny. Ante up with an actual rebuttal on-point or I'm done here. Keith's entire first post is essentially UNADDRESSED in terms of the questions he raises (and amazingly similar to the criticisms I have highlighted). Amazing. Your M.O. hasn't changed one bit; you ignore the salient points and RANT.

Buford you've answered none of my challenges in any credible way so at worst all that I've done is "returned the favor", except I've really have read the references I've cited.

Thank you Buford for clearly showing that you are struglling vainly with reliable subjective testing whether its the goals or the procedures.
arnyk is online now  
post #105 of 127 Old 07-13-2013, 04:00 AM
Senior Member
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 33
I realize that you are forced to attempt to characterize me as a simpleton who does not understand BS 1116-1 as opposed to one that DOES understand yet STILL disagrees (because you don't have any argument to address the latter situation). I now see that you NEED that. If you need to chant "Buford is an idiot" into your mirror at home like a savant in order to convince yourself that you don't need to address any questions I've raised, then by all means carry-on. I see based on your extensive post history that you've never been able to have a discussion with an "equal". They always end up being demeaned by YOU. I just re-read this entire thread and an objective reader is going to see through your diversions. Post all you want from here on out. You'll be yelling into an empty room.

I'm not wasting any more time while you deflect, divert, and rant. Also, regarding BS 1116-1, what manual or guide does not substantively advocate for the use of the product for which it is made or process for which it is intended? It's a substantive endorsement whether its overt or not. I can't imagine reading a manual that begins, "You REALLY shouldn't follow any of the subsequent directions or use this product, but here goes..."

I'm unsubscribed as of this post. I have a wife that I'm going to go spend time with. She listens to me and reads all of my text messages. A welcome departure from your non-responses.

(Arny, if you decide to substantively address my criticisms in the future, PM me and I'll be back post-haste or we can continue via PM...but not with your current noise)
Jon Lane likes this.

Arcam AVR300, Panny BDT-500, Toshiba SD-9200 CD transport, Vizio XVT 55" LED/LCD (full direct-backlit w/ local dimming), Arx A5 & A3rx-c Mains, Arx A2rx-c center, HSU VTF-15h, BJC ten white w/ ultrasonically welded connectors.
BufordTJustice is offline  
post #106 of 127 Old 07-13-2013, 04:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jon Lane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,176
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

There are no links in post 54.

In 53 you quoted 51, asking what you'd missed in it's reply to the red herring at 50. I also said this in 54, to dead air:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane View Post

I'm sorry I can't assimilate clear, useful references for this mindset.

And this back in 51 too, a repeat:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane View Post

Is [what can and what cannot be heard] a categorical science?

Despite that being it's redeeming practical use, I don't find an answer.

The ensuing bickering in mind, it's that familiar apathy to music that puts folks off both the Objectivist's dogma and audio, I think; they couldn't be blamed for putting both on the same dismal level. I'd also alluded to thinking maybe this time that trajectory would be different.

Now I remember why I haven't skimmed stuff like this in years, and why argument for its own sake is generally off-putting.

Best regards, Arny.

Jon Lane
The Audio Insider
Jon Lane is offline  
post #107 of 127 Old 07-13-2013, 05:09 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 451 Post(s)
Liked: 1064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

There are no links in post 54.
In 53 you quoted 51, asking what you'd missed in it's reply to the red herring at 50.

I'm not here to solve puzzles created by sloppy posting.
Quote:
it's that familiar apathy to music that puts folks off both the Objectivist's dogma and audio, I think; they couldn't be blamed for putting both on the same dismal level. I'd also alluded to thinking maybe this time that trajectory would be different.

Reaching that conclusion from this thread made me invent the word alogic. There is no logical way that I can see to discern what a person thinks about music from the contents of this thread, yet you apparently have convinced yourself that this is right, John.

However, it is at least as logical as your typical postings.

John if you are admitting that you feel apathetic towards listening to music all by itself, and therefore wish to obsess over imaginary audible differences among different pieces of equipment as a stimulus for incidentally listening to music, thenl that is something that you are free to do. Just don't hang your baggage on me. There is no evidence that the systems of people who endlessly A/B equipment have better sounding systems.

One of the things about realizing how similar much equipment sounds is speeding the equipment selection process so that the enjoyment of listening to music for its own sake can commence. I don't feel the need for an equipment audition to have an excuse to listen to music. One gets the feeling that some people who obsess over equipment do.
Quote:
Now I remember why I haven't skimmed stuff like this in years, and why argument for its own sake is generally off-putting.

Thanks John for admitting that you have only skimmed this topic and thread, because the resulting shallowness of understanding seems quite consistent with that behavior.
arnyk is online now  
post #108 of 127 Old 07-13-2013, 06:59 AM
Senior Member
 
syd123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: mid-atlantic region of US
Posts: 449
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 34
A big thumbs up to this thread. ...An enjoyable read even though much of it sailed well over my head.
syd123 is offline  
post #109 of 127 Old 07-13-2013, 08:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jon Lane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,176
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 48
I'm sorry, I just have to comment on this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I'm not here to solve puzzles created by sloppy posting.

Again: Review of your sequence re: 50, 51, 53, and 54 is clear and incontrovertible. Correcting your assertion three times is once too many, especially when so much of this and what follows appears flatly fallacious and at best, onus probandi. I happen to think it's worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Reaching that conclusion from this thread made me invent the word alogic. There is no logical way that I can see to discern what a person thinks about music from the contents of this thread, yet you apparently have convinced yourself that this is right, John.

My intent, if I may own it, was to say what I did: Folks are put off by disingenuous Objectivist smoke and noise. I know because they've written me about it during this thread and because I share their supporting observations. Plenty of others have commented about it for years prior, as you've experienced and as already noted. I won't bother with a verification because as transparently amusing as it is, I won't stoop to that burden-shifting and shotgun argumentation.

The aim of the A/B dogmatists appears not to be rational proof as much as it is circular, reoccurring controversy. Again: If testing is a science, what are its categorical findings? Kindly allow the data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

However, it is at least as logical as your typical postings.

Ditto
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

John if you are admitting that you feel apathetic towards listening to music all by itself, and therefore wish to obsess over imaginary audible differences among different pieces of equipment as a stimulus for incidentally listening to music, thenl that is something that you are free to do. Just don't hang your baggage on me.

Ditto ditto: Amusing to see burden shifting deployed so commonly and predictably. Telling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

There is no evidence that the systems of people who endlessly A/B equipment have better sounding systems. [sic]

Agreed, but I grant that you may want to correct that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

One of the things about realizing how similar much equipment sounds is speeding the equipment selection process so that the enjoyment of listening to music for its own sake can commence. I don't feel the need for an equipment audition to have an excuse to listen to music. One gets the feeling that some people who obsess over equipment do.

If that qualifies you to observe intent, Arny, kindly allow others that same right. Fine-tuning audio is predominately about the music. The crux of my discomfort with what is so far only claimed to be Objectivist science in service of the art of music reproduction is that it is not verifiable and that that want seems to arise from what are the clear logical conundrums its use predicts.

Pursuant that, I'd asked you about the universality of acuity thresholds three times. Was it the science it's claimed to be and like that. In this domain we don't have to be concerned with intent, ability, or even fallacious rhetoric, just data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Thanks John for admitting that you have only skimmed this topic and thread, because the resulting shallowness of understanding seems quite consistent with that behavior.

What I skim, Arny, is posturing, rhetorical filler. About five posts back I started regretting listening to it again this week. Yes, I am entirely inadequate for what I gather are its purposes.

Jon Lane
The Audio Insider
Jon Lane is offline  
post #110 of 127 Old 07-13-2013, 09:12 AM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane View Post

Folks are put off by disingenuous Objectivist smoke and noise.
"smoke" and "noise" you refer to are associated with subjectivists. Objectivism in this context is to cut through those two.
diomania is offline  
post #111 of 127 Old 07-13-2013, 09:17 AM
Super Moderator
 
markrubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 22,715
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 284
point of order: please lets stick to technical discussions...

Please take the high road in every post
Please do not quote or respond to problematic posts: report them to mods to handle
Link to sponsors
good to be back to vBulletin
markrubin is online now  
post #112 of 127 Old 07-14-2013, 06:16 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 451 Post(s)
Liked: 1064
Quote:
Originally Posted by JorgeLopez11 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

What evidence do you have that modern AVRs have problems when:


(1) They are not flagship models

(2) More than 2 channels are driven
HI Arny.

I didn't mention any problem with AVRs. I only referred to the fact PSUs are anemic in last model AVRs, perhaps with due exception of flaghip AVRs.

For instance my current Yamaha RX-A2010, rated  @ 2 x 140Watts/channel, 20-20000Hz, measured like this:




It is easy to figure this out if you open the amp and find the PSUs' fuse rating at 3.5 Ampere.

Suppose the fuse was selected with safety factor equal to 1.2. Then you have safe 2.8 ampere to work at 127Volts, which means 355.6 watts to share between all channels and pre/pro inside the AVR.

My calculations are 172.8Watts @ two channels driven simultaneously, 69Watts @ 5 channels and 50 Watts @ 7 channels.

And this is the second AVRs in Yamaha's Aventage series. 

Then I opened an entry level AVR and find a 1.5 fuse in the AVR rated at 90 Watts/channel and I started guessing what the manufacturer is trying to sell...

Yes, I know 8-10 Watts are enough to obtain more than 90dB in a small room in stereo mode, but what happens with dynamic peaks as high as 10-15dB in a large room using speakers with 86dB sensitivity at 4 ohms nominal impedance? You need POWER to follow music dynamics... Only a flagship AVR has the guts... or you need to buy a separate amp. 

You keep ignoring the fact that we use AVRs to amplify music which is multiple tones and constantly changing, while all of the data in the post above is based on steady pure tones. We also typically have subwoofers which can strongly offload not only the L & R speakers but also the AVR that drives them.

Finally, a hidden assumption in most of discussions like this is the ideao that all channels get driven to peak levels at the same time. I was at a friend's house last night whose system has amplification with maximum output in the >5 kilowatt range and the speakers to exploit it. We watched excerpts from the latest King Kong. It was quite clear that even during "The good parts" some of the channels were running at levels many many dB below the front channels. Furthermore the center channel was a leading source of sound but was driven by some of the smallest amplifiers in the ensemble.

I should set up a PC to rip multichannel Blu Ray discs and actually look at how the levels are distributed among the channels. I'll bet money it is rarely if ever anything like equal and peak.
arnyk is online now  
post #113 of 127 Old 07-16-2013, 11:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JorgeLopez11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: MEXICO CITY
Posts: 1,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post


You keep ignoring the fact that we use AVRs to amplify music which is multiple tones and constantly changing, while all of the data in the post above is based on steady pure tones. We also typically have subwoofers which can strongly offload not only the L & R speakers but also the AVR that drives them.

Finally, a hidden assumption in most of discussions like this is the ideao that all channels get driven to peak levels at the same time. I was at a friend's house last night whose system has amplification with maximum output in the >5 kilowatt range and the speakers to exploit it. We watched excerpts from the latest King Kong. It was quite clear that even during "The good parts" some of the channels were running at levels many many dB below the front channels. Furthermore the center channel was a leading source of sound but was driven by some of the smallest amplifiers in the ensemble.

I should set up a PC to rip multichannel Blu Ray discs and actually look at how the levels are distributed among the channels. I'll bet money it is rarely if ever anything like equal and peak.

 

I do not ignore anything Arny. I'm well aware music is a different animal than test tones. Nevertheless, I've listened to so many AVRs that do not have juice enough to properly show great dynamics at reasonaby high volume levels when playing in stereo mode some sort of demanding music.

 

E.g. please listen to Shostakovich 5th symphony at 80dB average level and then tell me what happens in climatic passages if no subwoofer is present. I can testify a Denon 3313 entered protection mode and shut down... eek.gif

 

Subwoofers aid is great. No doubt about it. But I prefer to be in the safe side and use a separate, powerful amp with generous headroom, because I find it very difficult to tune my subwoofer and mains for stereo presentations...

JorgeLopez11 is offline  
post #114 of 127 Old 07-16-2013, 12:08 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 451 Post(s)
Liked: 1064
Quote:
Originally Posted by JorgeLopez11 View Post

.

I've listened to so many AVRs that do not have juice enough to properly show great dynamics at reasonably high volume levels when playing in stereo mode some sort of demanding music.

Based on what reliable objective indication?

Got any oscilloscope traces to support your claim? Voltage and current measurements?
Quote:
E.g. please listen to Shostakovich 5th symphony at 80dB average level and then tell me what happens in climatic passages if no subwoofer is present. I can testify a Denon 3313 entered protection mode and shut down... eek.gif

Please provide more information about this recording. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._5_(Shostakovich) shows over 20 different recordings. I seriously doubt that they are all the same.

How do we know that the equipment in this system was in good working order? I notice that you also omitted what speakers were being used at the time. How do we know that they were well-designed and free of faults that shorted out the AVR outputs such as rubbing voice coils?

Until some reliable evidence is presented, the above anecdote would appear to be mystery meat.
arnyk is online now  
post #115 of 127 Old 07-16-2013, 02:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JorgeLopez11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: MEXICO CITY
Posts: 1,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post


Based on what reliable objective indication?

Got any oscilloscope traces to support your claim? Voltage and current measurements?
Please provide more information about this recording. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._5_(Shostakovich) shows over 20 different recordings. I seriously doubt that they are all the same.

How do we know that the equipment in this system was in good working order? I notice that you also omitted what speakers were being used at the time. How do we know that they were well-designed and free of faults that shorted out the AVR outputs such as rubbing voice coils?

Until some reliable evidence is presented, the above anecdote would appear to be mystery meat.

No measurements at all Arny. In this case is just my perception. Sorry! Mere anecdote here.

 

In any case, that Denon AVR was driving a pair or Monitor Audio RX8, 4ohm speakers whose sensitivity is unknown for me. I'd dare to say last movement of Shostakovich's symphony reaches at least 15dB above average. Even the first and second movements include lots of demanding percussions. It was the DG version under Rostropovich.

 

Of course I don't have a clue about the AVR. It looked fine to me.

JorgeLopez11 is offline  
post #116 of 127 Old 07-17-2013, 11:32 AM
Senior Member
 
padgman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Downstate Illinois
Posts: 207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Although Denon receivers may power 4 ohm speakers, they are not rated officially by them down to 4 ohms...............methinks the combination of 4 ohms, phase at a critical frequency, and the voltage required to play at 80+ db ( Monitor RX8 listed at 90db sensitivity) from ~3 meters away caused the Denon to go into shutdown mode.....................or it may be something else.........smile.gif
padgman1 is online now  
post #117 of 127 Old 07-17-2013, 05:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nethawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,513
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by padgman1 View Post

Although Denon receivers may power 4 ohm speakers, they are not rated officially by them down to 4 ohms...............methinks the combination of 4 ohms, phase at a critical frequency, and the voltage required to play at 80+ db ( Monitor RX8 listed at 90db sensitivity) from ~3 meters away caused the Denon to go into shutdown mode.....................or it may be something else.........smile.gif

Several Denon receivers are rated officially to 4 ohms, both of mine included. While I can't find the same measurements for the 3313, 2313 measurements show a healthy level of support for 4 ohm speakers. 3313 specs show THD rating at 4 ohms with 2 channels driven. It may be something else wink.gif

Nethawk is offline  
post #118 of 127 Old 07-18-2013, 05:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jon Lane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,176
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by JorgeLopez11 View Post

I do not ignore anything Arny. I'm well aware music is a different animal than test tones.

Exactly. And by your tying your experience to the graphic evidence you'd already provided, you just corollated them.

The premise we're asked to discuss is that in the presence of graphical, measured evidence, we cannot "prove" that an amplifier that sponges down under dynamic content by tens of watts is audible as it sponges down under dynamic content by tens of watts.

Such prima facie claims say it's impossible for an electrical device to exhibit such measurable behaviors under dynamic conditions simply because they're presumed to never occur under dynamic conditions, despite that being the device's reason for being - to incur and respond to dynamic electrical conditions. Naturally this raises a concern, which are the semantics surrounding the undefined variables "static" and "dynamic" in an amplifier's terms. You are left to wrestle with recovery time* as that unstated but essential term.

Whatever it is, however, surely you cannot hear it. Such a circular and electrically unsupportable theory is presumed valid while you must provide some other proof by measurement that such a device is audible during operation for the purposes it was designed for.

Which you just had.

In other words, the claim being made is that an industry said to produce dynamically inaudible devices measure them strictly statically so as to present them as flawed under those static conditions, then to sell them into a marketplace for use under dynamic conditions where they, as we and presumably the maker know, have no opportunity to behave statically, thereby to render them perfect in use and deeply imperfect in measurement.

I can think of one rationale that supports this premise: That the FTC is unduly hard on amplifier makers and that they have somehow never lobbied it to alter its measurement requirements. Conversely, why are amplifiers that do not sponge down under dynamic conditions almost universally preferred except for the cohort of audiophiles who appear to have a bias that they cannot sound different even when they measure very differently?

*Subjectivists have long believed that recovery time is among the most important variables in amplifier design. An amplifier that "shudders" and stores energy under dynamic conditions has a sound, which all amplifiers do to some degree. It happens that the best sounding amplifiers just do it less.

Jon Lane
The Audio Insider
Jon Lane is offline  
post #119 of 127 Old 07-18-2013, 04:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 451 Post(s)
Liked: 1064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by JorgeLopez11 View Post

I do not ignore anything Arny. I'm well aware music is a different animal than test tones.

Exactly. And by your tying your experience to the graphic evidence you'd already provided, you just corollated them.

That might be true if there were no such thing as expectation bias, but of course expectation bias can be very strong.

It's also an example of a person using themselves for their own supporting authority. IOW, he can be interpreted as saying he's right because he believes that he is right.
Quote:
The premise we're asked to discuss is that in the presence of graphical, measured evidence, we cannot "prove" that an amplifier that sponges down under dynamic content by tens of watts is audible as it sponges down under dynamic content by tens of watts.

Hopefully our discussion would be well-reasoned and supported by reliable evidence.
Quote:
Such prima facie claims say it's impossible for an electrical device to exhibit such measurable behaviors under dynamic conditions simply because they're presumed to never occur under dynamic conditions, despite that being the device's reason for being - to incur and respond to dynamic electrical conditions. Naturally this raises a concern, which are the semantics surrounding the undefined variables "static" and "dynamic" in an amplifier's terms. You are left to wrestle with recovery time* as that unstated but essential term.

The above would be an example of fabricating of self contradictory evidence and falsely ascribing it to others to advance one's own argument.

I'm willing to stipulate that at least some electrical devices exhibit such measurable behaviors and the effects can be measured. While "sponges down" is not a standard technical term, I am supposing that you mean that the amplifier's accuracy is dependent on the magnitude of the signal being amplified. Apparently you are not familiar enough with this topic to use standard terminology..However, it is most important to be able to accurately quantify the the amount of accuracy that is lost. Just because there is some loss of accuracy does not mean that there is an audible loss of sound quality.
Quote:
Whatever it is, however, surely you cannot hear it.

That seems like a fallacious and poorly-informed thing to say. In fact the loss of accuracy may or may not be audible depending on its magnitude.
Quote:
Such a circular and electrically unsupportable theory is presumed valid while you must provide some other proof by measurement that such a device is audible during operation for the purposes it was designed for.

Since the statements you have now chosen to criticize are of your own creation, I'll leave you to your own self-immolation! ;-)
Quote:
*Subjectivists have long believed that recovery time is among the most important variables in amplifier design. An amplifier that "shudders" and stores energy under dynamic conditions has a sound, which all amplifiers do to some degree. It happens that the best sounding amplifiers just do it less.

It is now easy enough to build amplifiers that are powerful enough that they never clip in actual use. How they recover from clipping is irrelevant to sound quality because they simply never clip in actual use. If a thousand watts is not enough, then what about 5 thousand watts? You appear to be arguing a moot point, presumably because you are unaware of modern technology that makes it easy and economical enough to build very powerful amplifiers.
arnyk is online now  
post #120 of 127 Old 07-21-2013, 10:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
carp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,981
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 421
Some of you may have seen this gtg but for those who haven't here goes.

I feel lucky, I have quite a few local avs guys that are as into this stuff as I am so one day we decided to figure out for ourselves if amps really make a difference.

We are all pretty open minded guys. Personally I have always leaned towards the side that says amps will sound the same if they aren't clipping but I was for sure open to the idea that amps make a significant difference. In fact, I was hoping we would prove to ourselves that amps did make a difference because I like buying gear and trying new things out so that would be another fun toy to research and buy to power my speakers.

Well, that night we thought that we discovered that amps have a very obvious and different sound. We took out as many variables as possible, level matching the amps withing .2 to .3 decibels at the most and often even closer than that.

We weren't going to discuss what we thought during the comparisons but right off the bat we realized that the sound differences were so obvious that we couldn't help but discuss.

In the end we realized a fatal error had thrown all of our findings out the window. The receiver used to direct the signal to the amps turned on Audyssey when it was accidentally turned off and then back on. So everything we were hearing was the Audyssey settings for the different pre-outs of the reciever (LRC, side surrounds, rear surounds, etc.) and accounted for why the different amps sounded so different.

Ha, it was quite the whirlwind. In a few hours I went from thinking amps didn't matter too much to thinking they made a ton of difference and back again.

The next day some of us did it again making sure evil Audyssey did not turn itself on again. This time... no difference. Well, with one exception. We had a cheap HTIB receiver in the mix just to test all kinds of amps. It did sound different, the soundstage was all off and the other amps all sounded better - and identical, even at pretty high volumes. We even had a 20 watt T amp that was indistinguishable from an expensive 2 channel Emotiva amp. Other than one person (not me) none of us knew which amp was which during this testing.

Being able to immediately switch makes all the difference. Even though our original findings got all screwed up it was still a blast and worth it to finally have the answer for myself if amps really do make a noticeable difference below clipping.

Check out the video avs member Chirpie made of the GTG. Very cool video, looks professional.



BTW the distortion during the 8 sub demo is the microphone, the bass was completely clear (and crazy) in person.



Nethawk and bladerunner6 like this.
carp is online now  
Reply 2 Channel Audio

Tags
Emotiva Upa 500 Five Channel Power Amplifier , Denon Avr 2313ci Receiver
Gear in this thread

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off