any suggestions for cables? - Page 10 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #271 of 873 Old 12-26-2012, 01:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nightlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern Sweden
Posts: 1,766
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 280 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Denial does not bring the communication forwards either. wink.gif

You've never seen something stated as a scientific fact on here that was wrong? eek.gif

Under construction:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nightlord is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of 873 Old 12-26-2012, 01:19 PM
 
goneten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord 
You've never seen something stated as a scientific fact on here that was wrong?

Well my boy, I'm sure you're right, but you would have to be more specific. Kicking a subjectivist while they're down is not a philosophy that I endorse! I do prefer to use my cane for such matters.
rock_bottom likes this.
goneten is offline  
post #273 of 873 Old 12-26-2012, 01:21 PM
 
goneten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord 
Denial does not bring the communication forwards either.

Such insight! biggrin.gif
goneten is offline  
post #274 of 873 Old 12-26-2012, 02:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,957
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 156 Post(s)
Liked: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

The junction break down voltage for current generation semiconductor process (.025 to .035 micron) used for microprocessors is 1.5 volts or less. There is no way you can use them for high-power audio amplifiers. Analog ICs are often built out of essentially obsolete (read cheap) processes four or more generations behind if not more. Besides, when it comes to classic high power AB amplifiers, they are not ICs but hybrid modules (IC driving discreet power transistors in the same package). So they are not remotely scaling or benefiting from advancements in semiconductor technology as digital systems are.
The only exception is switchmode/Class-D amps where they are using more advanced processes (although still behind the CPU/memory geometries).
Where there are some exceptions, in general sticking the front-end of the amp in the same place as the output means that there are thermally induced distortions. So while there are advantages in other areas, in general the best performance doesn't come from a single chip IC.

OK, perhaps microprocessors was not a good analogy. But there have been huge advanced in power transistor design over the past 20 years as well. Look at the MOSFETs we have today. Yes, they are primarily used as switches but they can make very good linear amplifiers as well.

Chip amps get a bad rap and probably somewhat deserved. But I saw a paper a while back that went into this and found some areas where the chip amps out performed discrete amps in certain specifications. And no, it wasn't a cost advantage. i had something to do with the thermal tracking. I'll see if I can find it.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is online now  
post #275 of 873 Old 12-26-2012, 02:15 PM
 
goneten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
^ I think your quote is missing a reply. Just FYI.
goneten is offline  
post #276 of 873 Old 12-26-2012, 02:24 PM
Senior Member
 
kraut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
You've never seen something stated as a scientific fact on here that was wrong?

Other than statements by subjectivists or true believers in whatever they believe in - all statement of scientific facts come usually with an declaration of a margin or error.
The simple reason - a scientific fact can never be proven to be 100% correct. There always is possibility of error, or new data overturning cherished ideas. And any scientist worthy the name will acknowledge that.

A scientific hypothesis is not proven- a hypothesis is scrutinized by trying to falsify, by showing that the data gathered by experiment or historical research (as in geology or paleontology etc.) can refute the hypothesis. If it doesn't then the likelihood increases the hypothesis is correct to within a MOE.
A subjectivist does none of those things - they try to convince themselves by relying on a failure prone data processing system (some call it a brain) that anecdotal impressions are valid data to assess any electronic device or products for the transmission of signals.

That subjective process works to some extent on electro-acoustic transducers (speakers or headphones) because auditory preferences play a role and the interaction between transducer and room. Measurements can show that a speaker is measuring inferior, but better suits someones taste.
Example: I used to run very neutral kef 104/2 in my listening room, but after listening to a cheaply bought second hand Klipsch Heresy 2 set I have been enjoying the Klipsch for the last six month - with subwoofer support.
kraut is offline  
post #277 of 873 Old 12-26-2012, 02:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,126
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 93 Post(s)
Liked: 308
Quote:
You've never seen something stated as a scientific fact on here that was wrong?
Of course, but scientific errors tend to be self-correcting on teh Internets. The zombie myths of audiophilia, otoh, never die.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is online now  
post #278 of 873 Old 12-26-2012, 02:31 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 748 Post(s)
Liked: 1162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post


But on the other side, there are a people on the scientific side clinging to bad info that's not helping communication either.

Do you have actual examples of "People on the scientific side clinging to bad info" or are you just throwing words around?
arnyk is offline  
post #279 of 873 Old 12-26-2012, 03:05 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,112
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 768 Post(s)
Liked: 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraut View Post

Other than statements by subjectivists or true believers in whatever they believe in - all statement of scientific facts come usually with an declaration of a margin or error.
What is that margin of error for cable, amps, and DACs? And how did you determine it?
Quote:
A subjectivist does none of those things - they try to convince themselves by relying on a failure prone data processing system (some call it a brain) that anecdotal impressions are valid data to assess any electronic device or products for the transmission of signals.
A subjectivists doesn't pretend to live by the rules we are talking about. The self-appointed "objectivists" do. Yet when you bring to them any data contrary to their beliefs, they refuse to accept one bit of it. In the case of Keith in this thread, he went one step further and said he won't even argue the point! I don't mean to pick on him smile.gif. I can show the same be true of just about all the vocal members in this thread. They believe what they believe and leave no margin of error. Now if they were luminaries in the field, one should and would listen. But a random poster on the Internet, with no engineer or research credentials? Would you take medical advice from someone online this easily? If not, why should anyone take audio advice from them?

I recently wrote an article for Widescreen Review Magazine to encapsulate what broad brush we use to judge small differences in audio systems (got tired of writing it over and over again in the fourm smile.gif ). I just put it online: http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/AudibilityofSmallDistortions.html. Tell me that you all knew all of this. And that you had read the research papers and have your answer as to why they don't apply to your ears. I think you will find it difficult to say that.
Quote:
That subjective process works to some extent on electro-acoustic transducers (speakers or headphones) because auditory preferences play a role and the interaction between transducer and room. Measurements can show that a speaker is measuring inferior, but better suits someones taste. Example: I used to run very neutral kef 104/2 in my listening room, but after listening to a cheaply bought second hand Klipsch Heresy 2 set I have been enjoying the Klipsch for the last six month - with subwoofer support.
Not really. It is a myth that we have random tastes and that one speaker that is good for you, is not good for me. We all tend to prefer similar things in speakers. It is the height of subjectivity and lack of research into the topic that leads us to the type of conclusion you have. Level matched, double blind listening tests demonstrate that, withing the bounds of "margin error" that you mentioned, our tastes is essentially one in the same no matter which group was tested:

TrainedvsUntrained.png

I have taken the above test. And my vote was just like the majority, my previous bias for some speaker technologies notwitstanding.

Now let's look at what you have done, with sighted evaluation and compare that result to blind tests of the same:

BlindVsSightedMeanLoudspeakerRatings.png

See how the rankings for speakers S and T changed from sighted versus blind? The look, brand and price of a speaker has a definite effect on how we think it sounds.

Clearly then we can't be part-time vegetarians smile.gif. We beat the drum of objectivity when it suits us (usually in arguing on forums) but then in other circumstances, we act purely like the folks we say are wrong: subjectivists. I don't see how we can have it both ways but clearly many of you do.

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #280 of 873 Old 12-26-2012, 04:59 PM
Senior Member
 
kraut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
It is a myth that we have random tastes and that one speaker that is good for you, is not good for me

First off - I clearly stated that subjectivity is about taste and not about an electronic device that measures indiscernible from another (within several percentage points below audible detection).
No blind test yet has proven beyond chance result that those differences in cables , amps (driven within parameters below audible distortion), dacs etc. can be told apart.
To conflate several issues to confusion seems standard with your postings.

You really seem to be confused about subjective "taste" vs. claims of anecdotal evidence as to the audibility of minor measured differences in electronic items.

Quote:
It is a myth that we have random tastes..We all tend to prefer similar things in speakers.

That is so arrogant that I almost stunned. Not even a dyed in a wool commie would ever have made such a claim. I listened to speakers that cost a multiple of what I am currently listening to and I prefer my setup, and as I stated i have switched from a very flat measuring (in my room at listening position) kef 104/2 using behringer deq 24/96, with a Klipsch that i really don't know how it measures and have not equalized - and I don't care, because I prefer that sound.

That small graph you post without further reference is simply meaningless because unreadable and unsourced. So I cannot argue for or against it.

What about the folks that eq a speaker to match their taste - and not their listening room? What about the fact of the typical bathtub curve of US speakers that were preferred in NA vs. the much more balanced reproduction of English and German speakers? Just a myth?

Speakers clearly measure different and sound different. That is simply undeniable. Your last graph also shows the tendency in preference is - except for one sample - quite similar between sighted and blinded evaluation.

And what is the "pretense" curve for in your last picture? Why present a curve when simply presenting point should have done? What should it show? A simple list would have done, without a meaningless graph that seems to want to lie about connectedness of data points that does not exist. But I guess lying with statistics is more impressive in a fake curve.
kraut is offline  
post #281 of 873 Old 12-26-2012, 06:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lovinthehd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OROR
Posts: 6,646
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 221 Post(s)
Liked: 786
Uh, what was this thread about? rolleyes.gif

lovinthehd is online now  
post #282 of 873 Old 12-26-2012, 06:29 PM
 
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 amirm View Post

Yet when you bring to them any data contrary to their beliefs, they refuse to accept one bit of it.
They'll accept it as long as it's not some phony or irrelevant data that you try to make it look as if it's relevant.
Quote:
In the case of Keith in this thread, he went one step further and said he won't even argue the point!
This is coming from a guy who still won't answer an important audio question:
Quote:
Originally Posted by from amirm's website 
the conversation turns into “yes but… is it audible?” As unfair as it might be, I am going to punt that question.
rolleyes.gif
diomania is offline  
post #283 of 873 Old 12-27-2012, 05:18 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,194
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1597 Post(s)
Liked: 1814
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnjoyingMyRide View Post

"There are laws of physics, and there are ears. Somewhere the two mus meet in common ground" - Rod Elliott

My system has been assembled piece by piece, each piece fulfilling a need. There are many criteria I use in order to make my decision. The products specifications of course are very useful, its features relative to my needs, user experiences, price, aesthetics, & ... Ultimately, how is the sound or video quality in my set up? After all, this is where it will live, with the rest of my system, components, interconnects, power cords, conditioners/regenerators, cones, display, rack, & room (anything else).

The cool part is, I am not afraid to start a new path or to take a different route. So, I guess what I am saying is that each piece of my system met the approval of my eyes & ears. Each of our systems is unique to each one of us. For example, I am unaware of any such data that correlates with improved audio or video quality I enjoy when I retired my Denon DVD-5900 for an OPPO BDP-95. But that's OK, my eyes & ears are thrilled with the change. I don't need data to hold my hand down this path.

There are basically two sides here with permutations branching off of each. There is no right or wrong here, but we must respect each others views, we might even learn something.

 

It's perfectly OK to say you "just like something". Nobody challenges that any more than you would be challenged if you said you didn’t like, or did like, ice cream. It's when those preferences are passed off as fact that those who understand the science behind the claims start to get prickly. If you say "I don't like the way ice cream tastes so I don't eat it" that is one thing. If you say "I don't eat ice cream because it gives you cancer", that is a different thing.

 

There is no right or wrong with regard to preferences, clearly. But there are indeed rights and wrong when it comes to science and scientific proofs.

 

I agree entirely with you that it is important to respect the views of others. What is not respected is when someone misrepresents his views as facts, especially when the 'facts' are not in accordance with established science.

 

If someone says "hey, I bought a $1,000 interconnect and I just love it. I love the way it sounds to my ears and the way it looks and I get great pride from owning it and having it in my system" - nobody sensible will challenge that. But when someone says "I bought a $1,000 interconnect and the difference it makes to the treble and the greater recovery of detail from the source is 'night and day' and those who can't hear these differences must have tin ears" - then that will be challenged because once it is evaluated objectively and scientifically there is no known reason why or how the interconnect can do what is being claimed, according to all known laws of physics.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
kbarnes701 is online now  
post #284 of 873 Old 12-27-2012, 05:33 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,194
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1597 Post(s)
Liked: 1814
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

A subjectivists doesn't pretend to live by the rules we are talking about. The self-appointed "objectivists" do. Yet when you bring to them any data contrary to their beliefs, they refuse to accept one bit of it. In the case of Keith in this thread, he went one step further and said he won't even argue the point! I don't mean to pick on him smile.gif

Amir, not for the first time do you misrepresent me. I do not refuse to 'argue the point'. I refuse to argue any point with you. My reasons are that you misrepresent, distort, misquote or quote selectively and, frankly, often talk nonsense because those whose words you so often cut and paste are equally as often not fully understood by you. I actually no longer 'see' your posts, but someone told me that you had singled me out, so I made an exception this time. I am very, very happy to be disagreed with by you and I will wear your singling me out as a badge of pride! ;)



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
kbarnes701 is online now  
post #285 of 873 Old 12-27-2012, 05:40 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,194
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1597 Post(s)
Liked: 1814
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraut View Post

To conflate several issues to confusion seems standard with your postings.

You really seem to be confused about subjective "taste" vs. claims of anecdotal evidence as to the audibility of minor measured differences in electronic items.

 

 

kraut - you really, really don't want to get involved here. Conflation and confusion run rampant through all of his posts. Try to discuss and he will misquote you or move the goalposts or create a straw man argument or try to wear you down with pages of cut and paste (usually irrelevant as you have discovered).

 

Quote:
And what is the "pretense" curve for in your last picture? Why present a curve when simply presenting point should have done? What should it show? A simple list would have done, without a meaningless graph that seems to want to lie about connectedness of data points that does not exist. But I guess lying with statistics is more impressive in a fake curve.

A perfect example of his 'technique'. My advice FWIW: don't waste your time.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
kbarnes701 is online now  
post #286 of 873 Old 12-27-2012, 05:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bfreedma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 9 iron from Philly
Posts: 1,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
^^^^

Forget about all that - from another performance vehicle fan, let's get back to your cars! smile.gif

Just once, I'd like to find an inexpensive hobby eek.gif

Edit - bit of a cross post from http://www.avsforum.com/t/1446856/count-1-more-for-all-receivers-sound-the-same/90
bfreedma is offline  
post #287 of 873 Old 12-27-2012, 06:04 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,194
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1597 Post(s)
Liked: 1814
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

^^^^

Forget about all that - from another performance vehicle fan, let's get back to your cars! smile.gif

Just once, I'd like to find an inexpensive hobby eek.gif
 

 

LOL!  Me too! ;)



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
kbarnes701 is online now  
post #288 of 873 Old 12-27-2012, 09:25 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,112
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 768 Post(s)
Liked: 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraut View Post

That small graph you post without further reference is simply meaningless because unreadable and unsourced. So I cannot argue for or against it.
My bad. I thought you would be familiar with research in this field. But no harm done smile.gif. Here is the reference from the Journal of Audio Engineering Society (peer reviewed):

Differences in Performance and Preference of Trained versus Untrained Listeners in Loudspeaker Tests: A Case Study*
Sean E. Olive, AES Fellow
Research & Development Group, Harman International Industries, Inc., Northridge, CA, 91329, USA

It is the result of blind evaluations of 256 untrained listeners and 12 trained. It included diverse groups from reviewers to audio dealers and college students. The graph I post is in Fig. 6. Here is the caption (it has two graphs; I only post the four-way one):

Fig. 6. Mean preference ratings and 95% confidence intervals for each loudspeaker as a function of listening group. (a) Four-way test. (b) Three-way test.

Here is a giant version to address its readability:

TrainedvsUntrained.png

As you hopefully clearly see now, speaker M was bad in blind tests for every group which listened to it. There was no inversion of preference there, with some people randomly liking it while others not. Likewise, speaker B did better than it for every group tested. Ditto for speaker I. Speaker P did slightly better as a whole but had close enough performance to "I" that there were a couple of inversions here and there. All in all, the data clearly points to our preferences being very similar, the opposite of what you said.

Turns out we can actually predict to very high level of certainty the above results using proper measurements. It is not the simple frequency response measurements you thought about but there is one that explains these results. Goodness in measurements therefore results in goodness in listening tests. In that sense, if you are not accepting this data, you are also not accepting objective measurement data either.
Quote:
What about the fact of the typical bathtub curve of US speakers that were preferred in NA vs. the much more balanced reproduction of English and German speakers? Just a myth?
The fact that they assumed people hear differently, yes, that is a myth. From the research I already cited to you: http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

"The mean loudspeaker ratings and 95% confidence intervals are plotted in Figure 1 for both sighted and blind tests. The sighted tests produced a significant increase in preference ratings for the larger, more expensive loudspeakers G and D. (note: G and D were identical loudspeakers except with different cross-overs, voiced ostensibly for differences in German and Northern European tastes, respectively. The negligible perceptual differences between loudspeakers G and D found in this test resulted in the creation of a single loudspeaker SKU for all of Europe, and the demise of an engineer who specialized in the lost art of German speaker voicing)."

That data was enough to change the direction of R&D at a multi-billion dollar corporation and loss of someone's job who didn't want to accept it. Watch it not be enough to win an argument here smile.gif.

Last time I met Sean, he explained a similar test to counter the claim that people in China have a different taste than us. This was to win a major OEM automotive contract for production of cars in China. That manufacturer was using Harman technology for US cars but thought that "sound" would not be what the Chinese wanted in their car audio and hence they could go with a less performant/cheaper system presumably tuned to the taste of Asians. Harman conducted large scale listening tests in both countries and found no difference in preferences between the two groups. And with it, won the multimillion dollar contract. That major auto manufacturer engineers accepted double blind listening tests as proper proof. Watch it not be enough to win an argument here smile.gif.

In yet another study Sean conducted and published at AES, he looked at the preferences of college students in both Japan and US and compared those to their in-house trained listeners. Click on the first link for the study summary and discussion with Sean (https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awhatsbestforum.com+Some+More+Evidence+that+Kids+(American+and+Japanese)+Prefer+Good+Sound&rlz=1C1SNNT_enUS374US375&oq=site%3Awhatsbestforum.com+Some+More+Evidence+that+Kids+(American+and+Japanese)+Prefer+Good+Sound&aqs=chrome.0.57j58j60.615&sugexp=chrome,mod=8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

Here is a summary graph from that AES report:

Individual+Listener+Loudspeaker+Preferences.png

We clearly see unanimity for the best sounding speaker: “A.” Likewise the relative rankings did not change for speakers B and C as compared to alternatives which came before them (within margin of error). Speaker D did deviate some. Sean provides an explanation for that in the WBF thread (location sensitivity for the listeners impacting the most on that speaker).

So taken as a whole, there is no evidence of wide deviation between different nationalities. We are all human with similar ability to detect "good sound" in blind testing.

I assume you don't have contrary double blind testing tests to show that we hear differently.
Quote:
Speakers clearly measure different and sound different. That is simply undeniable. Your last graph also shows the tendency in preference is - except for one sample - quite similar between sighted and blinded evaluation.
On your first point, none of us care if two pieces of gear sound different. We care about which one sounds better so that we spend our money that way. So what you are saying about the speakers measuring or sound different is neither here nor there. It is a difference without a distinction.

As to the implication that there was not enough of a difference, of course there were. 40 listeners in double blind testing completely and significantly changed their evaluation for that one speaker out of four. That alone demonstrates that we are impacted by bias in sighted speaker evaluations. But there was more: the relationship between speakers S and T reversed. In sighted testing, S was scored much lower than T. In blind testing, it actually slightly outperformed it based on mean scores. BTW, the reason for the low score for S in sighted evaluation was that it was a cheap plastic speaker and folks working at Harman naturally scored it down. Close their eyes and remove that bias and the ranking of the two speakers reversed. Here is the graph again if you have forgotten what letter went with which:

BlindVsSightedMeanLoudspeakerRatings.png

There is clear and convincing evidence here if you believe in science of blind testing. Not much if you want to look for excuses to ignore.
Quote:
And what is the "pretense" curve for in your last picture? Why present a curve when simply presenting point should have done? What should it show? A simple list would have done, without a meaningless graph that seems to want to lie about connectedness of data points that does not exist. But I guess lying with statistics is more impressive in a fake curve.
A list wouldn’t at a glance show whether there were variations between speakers or not. You can easily see in the graph that in sighted evaluation, there were big differences in the preferences as represented by the peaks and valleys. In blind evaluation, most of these differences melted away and the graph is nearly a straight line. Visually we can tell the two graphs are very difference and hence there is significant different in blind vs sighted testing. Starring at 16 set of numbers would not convey the same picture as clearly. But maybe if the goal is to ignore the high level results, burying the people in numbers would work better.

Allow me to remind you of a lament by Keith:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

That is true, but faith is a powerful thing (I am told it can move mountains, but have seen no independent corroboration). Once someone becomes a believer, it is very difficult to change their mind. No matter how much scientific evidence and proof you put before them, their faith generally prevails. Even the results of double blind tests won't convince them "I know what I hear... the test is flawed.. all I need is my ears... there are audible differences that can't be measured" etc etc).
I assume you agree with Keith’s definition of subjectivists as stated above. If so, how come like him, you are denying some of the most authoritative published references on the science and double blind tests anyone puts forward in these forums? If that is not enough to convince you two, “the men of science,” why should anything you put forward convince the camp that doesn’t even believe in your methodology? Aren't your efforts here meaningless with respect to your stated goal of converting the other camp with double blind tests and science?

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #289 of 873 Old 12-27-2012, 09:38 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 lovinthehd View Post

Uh, what was this thread about? rolleyes.gif
In amirm's mind, it's about the sound difference of speakers.
And this is his view about ABX:
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

4. Give up on some of your ideals. ABX is a pain in the neck to set up for hardware in your home. For testing computer files it is trivial. For in-home testing, I suggest using AB tests. You are not out to find the cure for cancer. No animal will be hurt in the process if you use AB instead of ABX . All you want is to learn more about your equipment, your biases, and your equipment. Searching for perfection means not ever getting started and that is not good.
diomania is offline  
post #290 of 873 Old 12-27-2012, 09:47 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 kbarnes701 View Post

I will wear your singling me out as a badge of pride! wink.gif
Definitely! That means you debunked him good somewhere. That's what triggers his crusade on an attempt to discredit those who debunked him. wink.gif Congratulations!
diomania is offline  
post #291 of 873 Old 12-27-2012, 11:29 AM
Advanced Member
 
esh516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 607
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Hey guys..yes its me esh516.. OK so I'm sorry I made bold statements about night and day improvements in audio equipment I bought..inc. Cables, etc..the very first post on this thread was about asking to upgrade cables..I was just giving my opinion..I did not realize this was a scientific proof is in the pudding thread..while I believe all my upgrades make a difference that's just my believe..not nobody else's..let them decide..science is flawed just like everything else in life..I have two parasound amps that measure the same..but do not sound the same..anyway I will keep my views to myself..the one thing I do agree with you all about is the FACT that speakers and the room do make the biggest difference in the sound without a doubt!...happy listening and thank you
esh516 is offline  
post #292 of 873 Old 12-27-2012, 11:37 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,194
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1597 Post(s)
Liked: 1814
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I will wear your singling me out as a badge of pride! wink.gif
Definitely! That means you debunked him good somewhere. That's what triggers his crusade on an attempt to discredit those who debunked him. wink.gif Congratulations!

biggrin.gif  Thank you! I do feel honoured I have to admit... :)



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
kbarnes701 is online now  
post #293 of 873 Old 12-27-2012, 11:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JHAz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,954
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked: 154
You have to start with the premise that the thing you want to "prove" is true. Once you assume the unproven is true, then sighted, non ABX tests are dandy. There's not any dispute that I am aware of that speakers, which have measurable differences both anechoically and in-room, sound different. So there is no need, at this point, to set up a test to establish that you can hear a difference between speakers. Tests to establish listener preferences are of interest, and I note that Harman and the folks using the Canadian lab seem to end up in simlar places regarding the desirable measurables of loudspeakers. But a tiny part of me wonders whether "preferred" is the way to go, or if there's a "more accurate" model that we should seek (the "eat your broccoli" of sound reproduction).


On the other hand there is, at best, disagreement over whether cables or electronics that are flat in a wide band, do not distort audibly, and are operated at the same spl with all staying within their linear operating ranges are audibly different. The only way to tell is to assume they aren't distinguishable and go about proving they are. Which requires double blind testing, and really ABX is the cleanest way, although perhaps simple A-B might work. "Does this sound the same as what you just heard?" The question should not be "can I tell which amp is the McIntosh?" or "can I tell which cable is the Audioquest?" It should be, "can I tell theses amps/cables apart in double blind conditions?" You cannot assume that to be true until it's proven to be true. Or else I'm going to start eating more sugar, because clearly sugar eases pain, cures cancer etc (at least when ingested in pill form). If we cannot tell the amps/cables apart when we cannot see them, their audible differences, if any, cannot be exactly momentous. I'll still occasionally read subjective reviews, but I'm at the point where until I see (or personally experience) evidence that it is possible to distinguish cables or electronics that have the same FR, below-audibility distortion, and are operated within their linear limits can reliably be distinguished if I can't see the faceplate, I'm not going to put major investment toward the high priced spread. If money were less of an object to me, I'd likely purchase electronics with superior measurable performance, knowing full well that 99.99999% chance is that I'll never actually hear a difference.
JHAz is online now  
post #294 of 873 Old 12-27-2012, 11:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JHAz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,954
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked: 154
You have to start with the premise that the thing you want to "prove" is true. Once you assume the unproven is true, then sighted, non ABX tests are dandy. There's not any dispute that I am aware of that speakers, which have measurable differences both anechoically and in-room, sound different. So there is no need, at this point, to set up a test to establish that you can hear a difference between speakers. Tests to establish listener preferences are of interest, and I note that Harman and the folks using the Canadian lab seem to end up in simlar places regarding the desirable measurables of loudspeakers. But a tiny part of me wonders whether "preferred" is the way to go, or if there's a "more accurate" model that we should seek (the "eat your broccoli" of sound reproduction).


On the other hand there is, at best, disagreement over whether cables or electronics that are flat in a wide band, do not distort audibly, and are operated at the same spl with all staying within their linear operating ranges are audibly different. The only way to tell is to assume they aren't distinguishable and go about proving they are. Which requires double blind testing, and really ABX is the cleanest way, although perhaps simple A-B might work. "Does this sound the same as what you just heard?" The question should not be "can I tell which amp is the McIntosh?" or "can I tell which cable is the Audioquest?" It should be, "can I tell theses amps/cables apart in double blind conditions?" You cannot assume that to be true until it's proven to be true. Or else I'm going to start eating more sugar, because clearly sugar eases pain, cures cancer etc (at least when ingested in pill form). If we cannot tell the amps/cables apart when we cannot see them, their audible differences, if any, cannot be exactly momentous. I'll still occasionally read subjective reviews, but I'm at the point where until I see (or personally experience) evidence that it is possible to distinguish cables or electronics that have the same FR, below-audibility distortion, and are operated within their linear limits can reliably be distinguished if I can't see the faceplate, I'm not going to put major investment toward the high priced spread. If money were less of an object to me, I'd likely purchase electronics with superior measurable performance, knowing full well that 99.99999% chance is that I'll never actually hear a difference.
JHAz is online now  
post #295 of 873 Old 12-27-2012, 11:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Nightlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern Sweden
Posts: 1,766
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 280 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

On the other hand there is, at best, disagreement over whether cables or electronics that are flat in a wide band, do not distort audibly, and are operated at the same spl with all staying within their linear operating ranges are audibly different. The only way to tell is to assume they aren't distinguishable and go about proving they are. Which requires double blind testing, and really ABX is the cleanest way, although perhaps simple A-B might work.

LTS-the "sound-technological society" here in Sweden have been using a Before-After blindtest for quite many years now for this. And while this is quite the magnifying glass for differences, it's so far been quite hard to find anything that doesn't alter the input in a hearable way. Though one can argue that in normal conditions those amps only having minor flaws may not be distinguishable. But saying that no differances exist within operating range has been debunked here for quite some time. Personally I would pick anything tested by them with only small flaws without hesitation. (Best so far is a Bryston - after Bryston changed their circuits following the initial test/feedback from LTS. Very nice with a manufacturer who takes the time to listen to feedback!)

Under construction:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nightlord is offline  
post #296 of 873 Old 12-27-2012, 12:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,126
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 93 Post(s)
Liked: 308
Quote:
LTS-the "sound-technological society" here in Sweden have been using a Before-After blindtest for quite many years now for this. And while this is quite the magnifying glass for differences, it's so far been quite hard to find anything that doesn't alter the input in a hearable way. Though one can argue that in normal conditions those amps only having minor flaws may not be distinguishable. But saying that no differances exist within operating range has been debunked here for quite some time.
Well, in the English-speaking world, it is the opposite view that has been debunked for quite some time, to the point where even advanced college textbooks support that debunking.

I have no idea what a "Before-After blind test" means. What I do know is that there are many ways to screw up a blind test, in either direction. Until we see some real peer-reviewed analysis of this test, we should remain skeptical.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is online now  
post #297 of 873 Old 12-27-2012, 12:10 PM
Senior Member
 
EnjoyingMyRide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 215
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 24
arnyk, kbarnes701, you both are correct, there is right or wrong in science. I had intended the statement be directed towards one's opinions not towards sound factual data. My bad. . .

Steve
EnjoyingMyRide is offline  
post #298 of 873 Old 12-27-2012, 12:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nightlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern Sweden
Posts: 1,766
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 280 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Well, in the English-speaking world, it is the opposite view that has been debunked for quite some time, to the point where even advanced college textbooks support that debunking.
I have no idea what a "Before-After blind test" means. What I do know is that there are many ways to screw up a blind test, in either direction. Until we see some real peer-reviewed analysis of this test, we should remain skeptical.

It might be too complicated for you to do yourself, but the principle is simple. Have the signal before the device tested as A and the signal after the device as B. Level matched of course. Test those blind and the only thing you need to do is try to find a diffenerence between them. Make sure the test suite give statistically solid results.

Which when testing an amp means that it isn't the amp your testing that's driving the speakers, that's another one. The tested amp is connected to either an electical dummy that replicates the electrical properties of a real speaker, or you connect it to another speaker in a room from which you won't have any interferance. One benefit of this is that you can actually test the behaviour at high or low volumes without having to listen to it at that volume.

( Getting the statistics significant without overly long series is probably the most challenging part, oddly enough. Fortunately LTS had /has a university teacher available for that. )

I'm certain a number of amp designers have been using this method over the years too. It's not that hard idea to hatch.

Last number of the member paper had two integrated stereo amps tested, one Denon and one NAD. Denon performed decently, the NAD less so.

Under construction:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nightlord is offline  
post #299 of 873 Old 12-27-2012, 12:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,126
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 93 Post(s)
Liked: 308
Quote:
It might be too complicated for you to do yourself, but the principle is simple. Have the signal before the device tested as A and the signal after the device as B. Level matched of course. Test those blind and the only thing you need to do is try to find a diffenerence between them. Make sure the test suite give statistically solid results.
That makes sense. But it doesn't sound like you're comparing two devices at all. It sounds like you're comparing an audio system with and without an extra device in the loop. No matter how you do it, that test couldn't tell you whether two devices sound different.
Quote:
Which when testing an amp means that it isn't the amp your testing that's driving the speakers, that's another one. The tested amp is connected to either an electical dummy that replicates the electrical properties of a real speaker, or you connect it to another speaker in a room from which you won't have any interferance. One benefit of this is that you can actually test the behaviour at high or low volumes without having to listen to it at that volume.
That makes no sense to me. You might as well have left it in the original Swedish. frown.gif
Quote:
Last number of the member paper had two integrated stereo amps tested, one Denon and one NAD. Denon performed decently, the NAD less so.
And that conclusion is nonsensical in a listening test. A listening test might tell you whether the two sound different. And it might tell you whether subjects preferred one to the other. But "perform decently" in a listening test doesn't compute.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is online now  
post #300 of 873 Old 12-27-2012, 12:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nightlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern Sweden
Posts: 1,766
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 280 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

That makes sense. But it doesn't sound like you're comparing two devices at all. It sounds like you're comparing an audio system with and without an extra device in the loop. No matter how you do it, that test couldn't tell you whether two devices sound different.

Not at once. But if two devices tested separately yields different colorations compared to input, there's no way the sound the same.

Under construction:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nightlord is offline  
Reply Audio theory, Setup and Chat

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