Processor Blind Listening Test - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 12:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
SteveH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: MN USA
Posts: 1,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randybes View Post

Hasn't Floyd Toole done some DBT? I was not under the impression that TN and RC were the only ones in the audio world who had done them?

My point is I have talked with both TN and RC. The magnitude of experiments that they have performed are very few. That does not mean that they are wrong in their conclusions but it is inaccurate to assume they have "decades" of research. I'd think their experience can be covered in about 2-3 days of experience. At worse case, both are accurate in concluding that passing ABX tests with level matched amps, preamps, or sources are damn difficult even comparing the World's worst vs. the World's best. I understand why this is and I have posted my theory in past posts.

I would never inaccurately conclude that a $10,000 dedicated prepro sounds better than a Denon 3806 pre outs as I have concluded otherwise on more than a few occasions. I will be the farm that those differences have nothing to do with FR and distortion.

Steve Herrala
SteveH is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 12:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Randybes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveH View Post

My point is I have talked with both TN and RC. The magnitude of experiments that they have performed are very few. That does not mean that they are wrong in their conclusions but it is inaccurate to assume they have "decades" of research. I'd think their experience can be covered in about 2-3 days of experience. At worse case, both are accurate in concluding that passing ABX tests with level matched amps, preamps, or sources are damn difficult even comparing the World's worst vs. the World's best. I understand why this is and I have posted my theory in past posts.

I would never inaccurately conclude that a $10,000 dedicated prepro sounds better than a Denon 3806 pre outs as I have concluded otherwise on more than a few occasions. I will be the farm that those differences have nothing to do with FR and distortion.

Oh, ok, understood.
Randybes is offline  
post #183 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 02:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gertjan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: All over
Posts: 1,533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
buddha33 -

Late in the game, but...

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddha33 View Post

Exactly, which is a huge part of what makes one surround sound processor better than another. Your conclusion...:
...

undermines the main function for which these processors were built: surround sound processing. So you've concluded that the two channel capabilities of these components are on par with each other. Great. Does that make one receiver as good as the other and therefore induce a purchase of the cheapest piece? If its only purpose will be stereo listening, I guess that would be the conclusion. Yet you'd be better off buying a stereo receiver or preamp.

However, most people aren't buying surround sound processors for stereo listening. So your test to prove the stereo capabilities of said processors seems quite irrelevant.

Just wanted to point out that Steve said in -his- situation. In -his- situation, he's using the receiver as a pre-pro. Since the pre part was proven to his satisfaction to not be inferior, and the pro part is supposed to be implemented the same way (as per his discussions with the Dolby tech guy and as underscored by Sanjay), it makes sense in his situation to draw the conclusion he drew. He's not saying that it is the conclusion for everybody. It's the conclusion for his situation.

"He who asks feels dumb for a few minutes, but he who does not ask remains dumb forever."

Gertjan is offline  
post #184 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 02:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gertjan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: All over
Posts: 1,533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
And oh:

Steve & friends: Thanks for doing this. I think it's valuable. People read way more into the test than you intended. I think it's useful in analyzing one piece of the complex puzzle that makes up these devices and home theater in general so that we can focus on the pieces of the puzzle that -do- make a difference.

As thebland seems to try to emphasize, there -are- differences between devices. Based on your tests though, it's not unreasonable to assume that those difference at least are not caused by the pre stage of these devices.

In other words: To me this test shows that in the pre stages there was no discernable difference, which suggests that any discernable differences when you use the whole devices (as opposed to the test, in which a single piece of the devices was isolated so that it could be evaluated more fairly) can be contributed to other parts of the devices. Since the basic processing part of the devices is supposed to be the same (when it comes to decoding and routing the DD/DTS etc signals) you can further narrow down the cause of any discernable differences between devices to the remaining components, which include (but are not limited to) DSP and the amp section.

Understanding what does and what does not influence the end result is valuable. I think Steve's test showed us one piece that does not seem to influence the end result.

"He who asks feels dumb for a few minutes, but he who does not ask remains dumb forever."

Gertjan is offline  
post #185 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 03:11 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,724
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 117 Post(s)
Liked: 414
Perhaps there are few experiments because in reality there is no great need for experiments that prove the same thing over and over. In the context of this thread, it would seem that regardless of the DAC used, if the output levels are made to be the same (they could've been more the same...maybe), the overall FR is within the limits that are considered indistinguishable (consider Florian's work on JND's as an example), THD and other distortions are simply below the level of detectability, jitter is low (consider Benjamin & Gannon's work from Dolby Labs), and there are no issues due to things like hum or grounding, then it's entirely reasonable to expect there to be no difference.

Maybe some might consider this to be a lot of ifs. Perusal of some of these measured characteristics on the web indicates that once we get beyond double digit players and stay away from the people (AudioNote for example) who are intentionally mucking with if not leaving the reconstruction filter out, that this is indeed the case. Certainly there will always be ways to make things better. A lower jitter. A lower noise. A better whatever. This is impressive for sure. But if you're already an order or two or three or more magnitude lower than can possibly be heard then this becomes an academic excercise.

So why, might one ask, are there just so many different DACs and so many different implementations? Several reasons come to mind.

1) No two engineers are going to solve the same problem the same way. Give each a tire and they'll make different cars.
2) Particular skills that a facility may possess.
3) Buying arrangements or commitments.
4) A simple desire to be different resulting in product differentiation.
5) New DAC's do more than old DAC's. They incorporate new features that can result in reduced costs because they take the place of circuitry. That increases profits and simplifies manufacturing. They can also decode other formats that consumers are taking to with increasing adoption.

IMO, it's time to stop praising the DAC's that have deficiencies like poor jitter rejection as hallmarks of what a revealing DAC is supposed to be.

The science community is not likely to keep revisiting issues that have been settled some time ago because some company or person now claims they've got the answer. This is especially the case when companies trot out their white papers which masquerade as critical work. This is especially the case when claims are bolstered by no more than anecdotal stories. IMO, if you've got the answer and you claim that your DAC is the next coming then its time for the person vying for the throne to start putting up. You got a faster car? All your buddies say it's the best out there? The e-review sites say it's the best? Trot the MF out to the DBT drag strip and put up or shut up and stop being a pussy.

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is online now  
post #186 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 03:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
thylantyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveH View Post

Hello thylantyr,
I have learned a lot. Thanks for noticing.

My results are parked in between both camps.

This implies that your test method has a bug in it. I bet if you
work hard you can isolate the problem and move to the correct camp

Your conclusion about FR and distortion causing sonic differences are not correct.



While we are at it, your recommendations to other "newbies" on having a tremendous amount of headroom (MEGA watts) is also wrong.

I usually tell people what my power preference is and why, it's their choice on
how they design their system.

Meaning, having more than enough power is meaningless to the ear unless the amp is clipping.

My listening habits tend to overdrive even the most powerful amps
We haven't talked in a long while, but in the past 6 months I have collected
12 pro audio amplifiers for my 'audio thrill ride' project. As you know pro amps are rated
different, but if I add up those ratings my amp array is rated for 64,000 watts.
If using the rms method, the array is rated for just over 30,000 watt rms. This is
just to drive the 4 tower mains {left + right).

I have logged multi thousand's of listening sessions over the years. I have been extremely impressed with several "commercial" loudspeakers.

Congratulations! If someone can find store bought product that satisfies
and it's within their budget, that is great news as it makes this hobby much
easier on the wallet and you have peace of mind.

In my view, I can only conclude that you either you have a lack of experience or your speakers are better than everyone else's. HEHEHE

Let me complete your statement to be more accurate.
1. Lack of experience
2. My speakers are better than everyone else's
3. My loudspeaker desires can't be satisfied unless I DIY

It ain't #1.

#2 is funny, who doesn't claim to have the superior system? I usually don't
make that claim, I usually tell people that the sound system should be customized for the listener and when you accomplish that goal, there is success.
It's really not about having the biggest toys.

#3 is correct.



The storm was gone, but dark clouds still hung around
The perfect setting for things to come......

thylantyr is offline  
post #187 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 03:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
thylantyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveH View Post

My point is I have talked with both TN and RC. The magnitude of experiments that they have performed are very few. That does not mean that they are wrong in their conclusions but it is inaccurate to assume they have "decades" of research. I'd think their experience can be covered in about 2-3 days of experience.

Lets not repeat history {everytime you talked to RC, you twisted the data
and posted it here to make him look bad.}.

Lets say this. People reading this thread that are interested can ask RC about
his experience. Post a message here or ask for his phone number.
http://www.carsound.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=16




The storm was gone, but dark clouds still hung around
The perfect setting for things to come......

thylantyr is offline  
post #188 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 03:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
thylantyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

So why, might one ask, are there just so many different DACs and so many different implementations? Several reasons come to mind.

1) No two engineers are going to solve the same problem the same way. Give each a tire and they'll make different cars.
2) Particular skills that a facility may possess.
3) Buying arrangements or commitments.
4) A simple desire to be different resulting in product differentiation.
5) New DAC's do more than old DAC's. They incorporate new features that can result in reduced costs because they take the place of circuitry. That increases profits and simplifies manufacturing. They can also decode other formats that consumers are taking to with increasing adoption.

IMO, it's time to stop praising the DAC's that have deficiencies like poor jitter rejection as hallmarks of what a revealing DAC is supposed to be.


Why so many different DACs ?

A bad analogy-> Why so many pornography movies? Because the market demands
the same ole thing over and over again, the net result is the same. Relief.



The storm was gone, but dark clouds still hung around
The perfect setting for things to come......

thylantyr is offline  
post #189 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 03:33 PM
Member
 
grinwell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 79
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Awesome, awesome job, Steve!

I wish critics would temper their tone to encourage *more* of these types of posts. This thread is about 1000x more valuable than "Best AVR for $500?????"
grinwell is offline  
post #190 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 05:07 PM
Senior Member
 
fanofmusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So has the dust finally settled? Whew.
fanofmusic is offline  
post #191 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 05:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Randybes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

Perhaps there are few experiments because in reality there is no great need for experiments that prove the same thing over and over. In the context of this thread, it would seem that regardless of the DAC used, if the output levels are made to be the same (they could've been more the same...maybe), the overall FR is within the limits that are considered indistinguishable (consider Florian's work on JND's as an example), THD and other distortions are simply below the level of detectability, jitter is low (consider Benjamin & Gannon's work from Dolby Labs), and there are no issues due to things like hum or grounding, then it's entirely reasonable to expect there to be no difference.

Maybe some might consider this to be a lot of ifs. Perusal of some of these measured characteristics on the web indicates that once we get beyond double digit players and stay away from the people (AudioNote for example) who are intentionally mucking with if not leaving the reconstruction filter out, that this is indeed the case. Certainly there will always be ways to make things better. A lower jitter. A lower noise. A better whatever. This is impressive for sure. But if you're already an order or two or three or more magnitude lower than can possibly be heard then this becomes an academic excercise.

So why, might one ask, are there just so many different DACs and so many different implementations? Several reasons come to mind.

1) No two engineers are going to solve the same problem the same way. Give each a tire and they'll make different cars.
2) Particular skills that a facility may possess.
3) Buying arrangements or commitments.
4) A simple desire to be different resulting in product differentiation.
5) New DAC's do more than old DAC's. They incorporate new features that can result in reduced costs because they take the place of circuitry. That increases profits and simplifies manufacturing. They can also decode other formats that consumers are taking to with increasing adoption.

IMO, it's time to stop praising the DAC's that have deficiencies like poor jitter rejection as hallmarks of what a revealing DAC is supposed to be.

The science community is not likely to keep revisiting issues that have been settled some time ago because some company or person now claims they've got the answer. This is especially the case when companies trot out their white papers which masquerade as critical work. This is especially the case when claims are bolstered by no more than anecdotal stories. IMO, if you've got the answer and you claim that your DAC is the next coming then its time for the person vying for the throne to start putting up. You got a faster car? All your buddies say it's the best out there? The e-review sites say it's the best? Trot the MF out to the DBT drag strip and put up or shut up and stop being a pussy.

Chu,

I am a little confused though by Shawn's statements and tests and his criticism of the lack of a critical level match with the conclusions above. Did I misread? I actually don't quite know what to make of his DBT and his results. I am firmly in the objectivists camp, but it seems that talk of emotional distress has made me think (maybe he is really John Atkinson ). I, for one, would not have thought he would be able to pass the test thinking that DAC and analog techology had reached the point of transparency BEFORE the MC1.

His results by themselves are maybe not that important, but I see him sending somewhat of message of poor testing and perhaps everything not being decided-or then again maybe I misinterpreted. He certainly didn't offer any speculation of something being amiss OTHER than better DAC and analog stage. For whatever reason, he seems confident of his test. I don't dimiss his test lightly. Then SteveH drops in with a wink and a smile AND TN being smart and all but being an economist (Dennis Murphy's of the world unite) with 2-3 days experience of DBT and SteveH is satisfied (apparently affirming he can hear differences in amps with similiar measurements). All very weird to me.


Randy
Randybes is offline  
post #192 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 05:27 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
SteveCallas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,714
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Gertjan and grinwell, thanks for the kind words. Keep your eyes open if we decide to do another type of test - we were asking around for a couple more participants when a couple people from the boards dropped out a week or two before the test, but nobody seemed able to fill in for them. I think having a few members from the boards participate in our tests will give them that much more credibility.
SteveCallas is offline  
post #193 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 05:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
SteveH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: MN USA
Posts: 1,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by thylantyr View Post

Lets not repeat history {everytime you talked to RC, you twisted the data
and posted it here to make him look bad.}.


I didn't mean to burst your bubble. In your mind he is a "scientist with decades of experience".

I must caution you; it is not a good idea to listen to "Death Metal Band" loud with 64,000 watts. That is real bad for your ears as it makes it tough to pass ANY listening tests. /hehe

Steve Herrala
SteveH is offline  
post #194 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 05:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
SteveH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: MN USA
Posts: 1,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveCallas View Post

Gertjan and grinwell, thanks for the kind words. Keep your eyes open if we decide to do another type of test - we were asking around for a couple more participants when a couple people from the boards dropped out a week or two before the test, but nobody seemed able to fill in for them. I think having a few members from the boards participate in our tests will give them that much more credibility.

Steve,
If you compare some preamps (in stereo) might I suggest comparing a Krell HTS 7.1 vs. an Arcam AV8. IMHO, they are as far apart as can be. Comparing the D2 and the AV8 should suffice. Go out of your way to grab an AV8 if a local dealer will let you borrow one...
Steve

Steve Herrala
SteveH is offline  
post #195 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 05:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Randybes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fanofmusic View Post

So has the dust finally settled? Whew.

Not sure about that. By the way, is David L. Clark still around?
Randybes is offline  
post #196 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 06:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tlf9999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveH View Post

it is not a good idea to listen to "Death Metal Band" loud with 64,000 watts.

not if your speaker sensitivity is -536db.

tlf9999 is offline  
post #197 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 06:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sfogg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Ma, USA
Posts: 5,614
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Randy,

"I am a little confused though by Shawn's statements and tests and his criticism of the lack of a critical level match with the conclusions above. Did I misread? I actually don't quite know what to make of his DBT and his results. I am firmly in the objectivists camp, but it seems that talk of emotional distress has made me think (maybe he is really John Atkinson )."

No, I am not John Atkinson.

I too am firmly in the objectivist camp and have been so for a long time since I did some level matched/blind comparisons many moons ago in components I thought were night and day different. I spent literally years talking and reading about this back on the old CEAUDIO forum learning from the likes of E. Brad Meyer and many others. Subjectivists don't waste $600 on ABX boxes when they could have instead spent that money on 'night and day difference' cables.

My criticisms of the lack of level matching to the needed precision are objections any objectivist (that knows what they are talking about) would agree with. Heck the people that developed the original ABX box over 20 years ago knew this then.

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_crit.htm

I would have had the exact same criticism if they came back and said they heard differences in the comparison too. I wonder who else would have then agreed with me since in that case it would be a criticism of a view that they would want to agrue with?

Shawn
sfogg is offline  
post #198 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 06:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Randybes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfogg View Post

Randy,

"I am a little confused though by Shawn's statements and tests and his criticism of the lack of a critical level match with the conclusions above. Did I misread? I actually don't quite know what to make of his DBT and his results. I am firmly in the objectivists camp, but it seems that talk of emotional distress has made me think (maybe he is really John Atkinson )."

No, I am not John Atkinson.

I too am firmly in the objectivist camp and have been so for a long time since I did some level matched/blind comparisons many moons ago in components I thought were night and day different. I spent literally years talking and reading about this back on the old CEAUDIO forum learning from the likes of E. Brad Meyer and many others. Subjectivists don't waste $600 on ABX boxes when they could have instead spent that money on 'night and day difference' cables.

My criticisms of the lack of level matching to the needed precision are objections any objectivist (that knows what they are talking about) would agree with. Heck the people that developed the original ABX box over 20 years ago knew this then.

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_crit.htm

I would have had the exact same criticism if they came back and said they heard differences in the comparison too. I wonder who else would have then agreed with me since in that case it would be a criticism of a view that they would want to agrue with?

Shawn

Shawn,

The John Atkinson reference was tongue in cheek(as you know). I have read many of your posts and believe you me, I have the UTMOST of respect for you (and don't you do cars as well). You have made me think though that maybe this is not a decided issue. I really probably was making a point to Chu (and maybe a little bit of a challenge to SteveH to go through with his Tom N thing just so we can get a report). I believe you would have had the same criticism (and it seems valid to a novice like me) about the level match.

Hopefully, you took no offense.

Randy


P.S. Hell, I can't offend you, Sanjay, and Chu. You guys are my favorites!

P.P.S. The emotional thing though (stess and DBT failure) is a criticism of the whole DBT thing by subjectivists though isn't it? It seem that way to me from reading the emotional tantrums over on the audio opinion group. I sure wish Chung was still here posting-sigh.
Randybes is offline  
post #199 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 06:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
SteveH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: MN USA
Posts: 1,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Hello Shawn,
As an interesting side note, you and I own about 8% of the entire QSC ABX boxes ever sold. They made two very small batches. I understand they STILL have 25 from a 1998 build.

I have also passed (level matched) amp and (level matched) preamp tests later to fail in the same day. I also blame it on stress.

I think there might be a business in renting one of these babies out!

Steve Herrala
SteveH is offline  
post #200 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 06:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Randybes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveH View Post

Hello Shawn,
As an interesting side note, you and I own about 8% of the entire QSC ABX boxes ever sold. They made two very small batches. I understand they STILL have 25 from a 1998 build.

I have also passed (level matched) amp and (level matched) preamp tests later to fail in the same day. I also blame it on stress.

I think there might be a business in renting one of these babies out!

Well, I guess I will have to buy one and do some actual work-damn-do you have the web site (or address)?
Randybes is offline  
post #201 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 06:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sfogg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Ma, USA
Posts: 5,614
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Randy,

Nope, I took no offense and understood that reference was in jest.

I just took that opportunity to say the above since I think some are either missing that point or outright trying to change it to something else.

The thing is any objectivist will tell you... you can't prove a negative.

So any issue that has never had a positive isn't a decided issue. Certainly you can look at the tests that have been done and say the trend or likelyhood of someone passing the test are very low. But if you are really being honest a real objectivist can not say it is impossible. Mathematically you simply can't state that someone somewhere can't pass.

And to add to that... the objectivists that really *are* just interested in facts, and not pushing an agenda, would realize that if someone does pass a valid test that no one has ever passed before it was just proven to be possible. Facts are facts as has been said in the thread. Even if it only happens a small fraction of the time it happens and is therefor possible.

Shawn
sfogg is offline  
post #202 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 06:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Randybes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfogg View Post

Randy,

Nope, I took no offense and understood that reference was in jest.

I just took that opportunity to say the above since I think some are either missing that point or outright trying to change it to something else.

The thing is any objectivist will tell you... you can't prove a negative.

So any issue that has never had a positive isn't a decided issue. Certainly you can look at the tests that have been done and say the trend or likelyhood of someone passing the test are very low. But if you are really being honest a real objectivist can not say it is impossible. Mathematically you simply can't state that someone somewhere can't pass.

And to add to that... the objectivists that really *are* just interested in facts, and not pushing an agenda, would realize that if someone does pass a valid test that no one has ever passed before it was just proven to be possible. Facts are facts as has been said in the thread. Even if it only happens a small fraction of the time it happens and is therefor possible.

Shawn

Great post and thank you. I understand the agenda thing although being a skeptic I always look first to the money (not directed at you but the "great debate in general" -and my personal opinion based on my knowledge of review pay etc. is that TN is not making much money being a skeptic)-but that is probably my bias over a long life in finance, collections, accounting, etc. (and I have dealt with the biggest companies in the world in very interesting ethical situations). It is amazing how money can make one change ones views. VERY POWERFUL BIAS in my very limited (wait not so limted-more than 30 years) and humble opinion. I guess that is why I would want a recheck of any positive DBT that had not been successfully done before by a third party. That seems to me to be logical. Isn't "happens" the first step and repeatable by peers the next? So if it "happens" and then is repeatable by others, we have something-agreed?

I should add that this is directed not at those who are after personal affirmation. What I am after is someone who says they can detect a vs. b but does not publish their results and methodolgy. They therefore can just sit back and be critical of published results without having their test being evaluated. That in itself could be construed as an agenda in my mind. Oh well, time to listen to some music.
Randybes is offline  
post #203 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 06:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sfogg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Ma, USA
Posts: 5,614
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Steve,

We very well may have a fairly large percentage of them. Stuart Robinson over on SMR has one too... I turned him on to them since he too was back on those same discussions on CEAUDIO and decided it was worth the purchase. It is a great box and QSC did a very nice job on them.

Shawn
sfogg is offline  
post #204 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 07:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sfogg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Ma, USA
Posts: 5,614
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Randy,

If you are looking for the QSC box try the contact listed on this page.

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_qsc.htm

He is who I bought mine from.

I have the manual available online here:

http://ackthud.com/shawnfogg/pics/temp/ABX_manual.pdf

Shawn
sfogg is offline  
post #205 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 07:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Randybes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfogg View Post

Randy,

If you are looking for the QSC box try the contact listed on this page.

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_qsc.htm

He is who I bought mine from.

I have the manual available online here:

http://ackthud.com/shawnfogg/pics/temp/ABX_manual.pdf

Shawn

Thanks Shawn-will do.
Randybes is offline  
post #206 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 07:36 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 18,734
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 472 Post(s)
Liked: 606
Randy,
Quote:


The emotional thing though (stess and DBT failure) is a criticism of the whole DBT thing by subjectivists though isn't it?

It should really be brought up by objectivists more often.

One of the reasons I underscored that part of Shawn's test is to highlight how someone can fail a DBT that they've already passed, even under the most fair conditions: used his own system, his choice of listening material, no time constraints, level matched to .1dB, no one observing him, no outside pressure, nothing riding on the test, etc.

But what if that particular test happened to be the time that someone like Richard Clark or Tom Nousaine was administering and/or watching? What if it was part of some sort of friendly wager at AVS? Would any one have cared or even believed Shawn when he reassured folks that he had passed the same test later that day, as well as the day before? Probably not. And that would be too bad because the results everyone heard about would have inaccurately reflected differences between the two processors.

Objectivists are skeptical by nature. However, I've noticed many of them turn off their skepticism when they hear results they like. Notice that Shawn didn't. I thought Steve did the best he could with what he had available for carrying out the test. Folks are already making sweeping generalizations from the results, which (ironically) Steve himself is being careful not to do.

Even when results are reassuring to an objectivist, they should still be viewed with the same healthy skepticsm that would have accompanied the opposite results. There are plenty of reasons for failing a DBT. Lack of sonic difference shouldn't be the first and only conclusion we draw.

Sanjay

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #207 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 07:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Randybes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Randy, It should really be brought up by objectivists more often.

One of the reasons I underscored that part of Shawn's test is to highlight how someone can fail a DBT that they've already passed, even under the most fair conditions: used his own system, his choice of listening material, no time constraints, level matched to .1dB, no one observing him, no outside pressure, nothing riding on the test, etc.

But what if that particular test happened to be the time that someone like Richard Clark or Tom Nousaine was administering and/or watching? What if it was part of some sort of friendly wager at AVS? Would any one have cared or even believed Shawn when he reassured folks that he had passed the same test later that day, as well as the day before? Probably not. And that would be too bad because the results everyone heard about would have inaccurately reflected differences between the two processors.

Objectivists are skeptical by nature. However, I've noticed many of them turn off their skepticism when they hear results they like. Notice that Shawn didn't. I thought Steve did the best he could with what he had available for carrying out the test. Folks are already making sweeping generalizations from the results, which (ironically) Steve himself is being careful not to do.

Even when results are reassuring to an objectivist, they should still be viewed with the same healthy skepticsm that would have accompanied the opposite results. There are plenty of reasons for failing a DBT. Lack of sonic difference shouldn't be the first and only conclusion we draw.

Sanjay

I agree EXCEPT I would point to my post above about publishing and then doing a test that has not been peer reviewed. Let's not forget the scientific method requires repeatable verification by others not just by some lone individual( unless you believe in cold fusion). I don't think you should dismiss TN out of hand. He has published with AES and I am not sure Shawn has? I highly respect Shawn and you, but for you to say "hey Shawn did a test and you should take it as fact and therefore "scientifically "one did" and he did not publish is in a way nothing more than anectotal-then are we not right back where we started?) I am not going to take sides (well maybe I did) but if we are going to name names, I will put up some arguments. I guess I have to admit that Tom is a friend. That being said, I would be glad to have the TomN test of amps with SteveH come about BUT it never did-zen happened first to SteveH I don't think it was Tom's fault (pretty damn sure actually). I am sure you and Shawn could have attended if it had happended.

Again the stess thing is troubling BUT it is Shawn's claim!! If you read the history of this whole argument (differences in things that would appear to be settled), it did not start with small differences. It was "holy ****", nirvana has hit and the differences are so great that any fool could see (hear) them-and then TN and other questioned and then there were quite a lot of tests and wow the test of these HUGE differences vanished and they were affected by ones "bad day at work" Sorry a skeptic like me says "wait just a fu**kin minute". I am not going to say why Shawn failed the second tests, but it could have been stress OR it could have been he thought he should fail because of stress-who knows (in that case, couldn't you "prove a negative by failing because you think you should?). Or maybe QQQ is really at the root of this whole thing and he is putting us on-he is a bit of a skeptic that actually liked "The Audio Critic".

So you are skeptical but not of Shawns results? Why? I don't say his results were wrong, but why would you place more faith in his results than TonN or David L Clark or Ian Masters or any number of others. In fact, it would seem to me he has less strength because he didn't publish.

I am not in the best of moods (so my tone is probably not the nicest) but it seems like the scientific method is being bastardized by bringing in personalities (I know I started it but the agenda thing did confirm what I read through the lines). My feeling was that there was actually a liitle bit of agenda going on (objectivists are well bias with an agenda). Your post kind of confirmed it to me. Shawn is a testament to objectivists needing to be more "objective" The only problem is that as I stated it is "Shawns test" and I should give it more weight because ?. And where the hell is Bigus and Chu and others when I need them.

So now I have probably alienated everyone who I consider a friend, but I had to say what I truly believe. TomN and others have in my opinion really taken a beating by so many by actually Publishing what they believe and what they have tested. Could they be wrong-of course but That sticky scientific method again (not relying on one persons results)

So publish your results that contradict the published results or don't expect me to give it equal weight-why should I?
Randybes is offline  
post #208 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 08:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,127
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randybes View Post

Hasn't Floyd Toole and David L Clark (DLC Design) done some DBT? I was not under the impression that TN and RC were the only ones in the audio world who had done them?

Toole certainly has in his 20 yr career at Canadian Research Council, then at Harmon, and prior to CRC in Canadian mags.
DC has also done some, not sure how many though.
TN certainly has published a number of them himself.
CharlesJ is online now  
post #209 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 08:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,127
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 89
[quote=tlf9999]how could you say that?

Let me see. I guess I found the right letters on the keyboard in the right order?

Are you telling me I didn't hear what I heard?

Who knows what you really heard? You perceived something. That is not hearing facts.

Are you suggesting science needs to be applied to get rid of the placebo effect?

You are factually wrong!



Only if one is concerned with arriving at reliable outcomes and factual events. Otherwise, artists imagine all the time and I enjoy their results
CharlesJ is online now  
post #210 of 504 Old 05-24-2006, 08:36 PM
 
J.H.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Don't ever test how smart tlf9999 is he thinks hes the smartest guy on the board. "Thinks" is the most important word. don't listen to him he is the most arrogant person here.
J.H. is offline  
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

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