Cable problem - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 218 Old 12-09-2013, 09:36 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,083
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 755 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by 67jason View Post

science is not open to popular vote!!!!rolleyes.gif
Science? That was the first thing that was damned when a clearly sighted test was called not just single blind, but double blind! I want to see how many advocates of DBT are so confused about what blind testing means. I am going to count you in the confused group until you say otherwise.
Quote:
plan and simple question -are your findings audible not? a simple yes or no will suffice. if yes how did you confirm?
As I said I have given the answer in the article. And the article is in public record. What you find sufficient or otherwise is not of import to me.

What is important to me is to see how you analyze this data and arrive at a defensible answer. So far I am told a DBT is the only way yet no one wants to even explain the protocol let alone run said tests they so believe in. Then a sighted test by Dolby is used to claim inaudibility completely shooting holes into demands to run DBTs. Finally, an attempt was made to compare jitter to wow and flutter of records and tapes ignoring every bit of science of psychoacoustics. You want to make up your mind and state your scientific case without such clear holes?
Quote:
enough of this egotistical crap. no hand waving or grandstanding or arguing or distractions required. state it simply and clearly to the point without half truths or omissions or kindly get lost.

or is your ego too damn big for this?
I suggest you take a moment to calm down and then focus on contributing technically. We need to stay professional and focused on discussion of science and engineering. If that's difficult to do, then I will have to leave the shouting to you smile.gif.

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  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 218 Old 12-10-2013, 12:17 AM
 
Heinrich S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 974
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Just want to clarify my reasoning. I think reality is different to all of us , it really is more a state of mind than an absolute fact.
Yes , there is "what exists" as a type of reality but the perception of that "reality" is really in the eye/ear of the beholder. We can thus say there are 2 reality. Yours and the physical worlds'.

As examples of actual reality , lets use a cup of tea. Some folk swear blind it tastes better out of bone china than an enamel mug. We all know its the same tea , but the bone china brigade DOES taste a difference , despite it being in their mind and not existing in reality. They will pay 20x the cost of the mug for that bone china.

In audio , if you play 2 tones close to each other , in a big proportion of the population , they can hear a tone between the 2 - it does not exist in reality....but non the less they actually hear it , so in their reality , it exists.

I agree , the mind tricks you as does suggestion.

As to folk buying stuff: almost all the audiophiles I know are literate , intelligent , have some tech knowledge etc. They are not guilible folk and most know when they are reading scientific "foo" , but they WANT to buy into it all and if they have the moolah.. then why not.

No harm, no foul.
Heinrich S is offline  
post #183 of 218 Old 12-10-2013, 01:41 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,855
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 271 Post(s)
Liked: 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S View Post

Just want to clarify my reasoning. I think reality is different to all of us , it really is more a state of mind than an absolute fact.
Yes , there is "what exists" as a type of reality but the perception of that "reality" is really in the eye/ear of the beholder. We can thus say there are 2 reality. Yours and the physical worlds'.

No, Heinrich, that doesn't wash. The "dual" reality you espouse disappears in a properly designed bias controlled test. When bias is removed, we all do or do not hear audible differences exactly the same way. We don't get different results from different people. What is audible to one person is audible to another. What is not audible is not.
Quote:
As examples of actual reality , lets use a cup of tea. Some folk swear blind it tastes better out of bone china than an enamel mug. We all know its the same tea , but the bone china brigade DOES taste a difference , despite it being in their mind and not existing in reality. They will pay 20x the cost of the mug for that bone china.

How would you have a proper blind test and change containers? Each participant would know immediately from feeling that the container had changed. Hence it isn't a blind test. Also we don't test preference. We test the ability to identify which product is which with nothing but hearing.
Quote:
In audio , if you play 2 tones close to each other , in a big proportion of the population , they can hear a tone between the 2 - it does not exist in reality....

Yes it does. It even has a name. It is called a beat frequency..
Quote:
I agree , the mind tricks you as does suggestion.

There you go.
Quote:
As to folk buying stuff: almost all the audiophiles I know are literate , intelligent , have some tech knowledge etc. They are not guilible folk and most know when they are reading scientific "foo" , but they WANT to buy into it all and if they have the moolah.. then why not.

No harm, no foul.

I agree. People should have what pleases them as long as no hardship is involved. Our purpose is not to prevent people from owning audio jewelry. It is simply to have them understand what it is. As long as that is clear, there is no problem at all. The problem lies in the industry and the audio press preying on hearing bias. As long as buyer understands what he is doing, I have no quibble with it at all. An expensive watch or designer purse doesn't do its job any better than a less desirable product and the people who buy them understand that. So there is not problem. The problem in audio is that most people do not understand that so they are making their decision based on a false premise that is promulgated by those who sell it.
FMW is offline  
post #184 of 218 Old 12-10-2013, 02:40 AM
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: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S View Post

Just want to clarify my reasoning. I think reality is different to all of us , it really is more a state of mind than an absolute fact.

In its extreme form that would be known as Solipsism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

"Solipsism (Listeni/ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/; from Latin solus, meaning "alone", and ipse, meaning "self") is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist. As such it is the only epistemological position that, by its own postulate, is both irrefutable and yet indefensible in the same manner."

The key word is that it is indefensible, not to mention that it in essence denies the validity of any opinion but yours. If you choose to hold this course, you should never participate in a conference with other audiophiles because it is impossible for you to agree with them, share experiences with them, etc. It also denies the validity of science.

In short it is a logically untenable position for a person who wishes to participate in a community. Is that really you? ;-)
arnyk is offline  
post #185 of 218 Old 12-10-2013, 03:09 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 17,850
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1383 Post(s)
Liked: 1677
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S View Post

Just want to clarify my reasoning. I think reality is different to all of us , it really is more a state of mind than an absolute fact.

In its extreme form that would be known as Solipsism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

"Solipsism (Listeni/ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/; from Latin solus, meaning "alone", and ipse, meaning "self") is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist. As such it is the only epistemological position that, by its own postulate, is both irrefutable and yet indefensible in the same manner."

The key word is that it is indefensible, not to mention that it in essence denies the validity of any opinion but yours. If you choose to hold this course, you should never participate in a conference with other audiophiles because it is impossible for you to agree with them, share experiences with them, etc. It also denies the validity of science.

In short it is a logically untenable position for a person who wishes to participate in a community. Is that really you? ;-)

 

At least Heinrich has now explained why he posts what he does. Given that he has outed himself as a Solipsist, he will surely now agree that it is entirely pointless to engage in any discussion with him, on any subject. This comes as a huge relief I think ;)



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 offline  
post #186 of 218 Old 12-10-2013, 04:45 AM
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: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by 67jason View Post


What is important to me is to see how you analyze this data and arrive at a defensible answer.

Amir you've already frustrated my not inconsiderable attempts at doing that for more than a year, so guess how motivated I now am on that front. ;-)
Quote:
So far I am told a DBT is the only way yet no one wants to even explain the protocol let alone run said tests they so believe in.

Amir you just got through telling the world how I am incompetent to interpret the landmark Clark paper on the topic, so guess how motivated I now am on that front. ;-)
Quote:
Then a sighted test by Dolby is used to claim inaudibility completely shooting holes into demands to run DBTs.

Except Amir that's wrong too, and I have explained that to you in detail how and why. So guess how motivated I now am on that front. ;-)
Quote:
Finally, an attempt was made to compare jitter to wow and flutter of records and tapes ignoring every bit of science of psychoacoustics.

Except Amir that's also wrong and I have explained that to you in detail how and why in the past. So guess how motivated I now am on that front. ;-)

Basically Amir you have locked yourself in a logic tight box, and I for one feel no remaining debt to you that would make me want to help you out of it. ;-)

Have a nice day!
arnyk is offline  
post #187 of 218 Old 12-10-2013, 05:03 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,083
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 755 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

When bias is removed, we all do or do not hear audible differences exactly the same way. We don't get different results from different people. What is audible to one person is audible to another. What is not audible is not.
That is not true at all. Take the dolby test chart I just post:

i-Drkbsqv-L.png

Look at subject 1 and compare it to subject 9. The subject 1's median detection level was nearly 200 nsec whereas subject 9's was 40 nsec. A difference of 5:1. And this is after Dolby screened out the people who couldn't hear the control test: "At the end of the training session, any subjects that exhibited unusual difficulty in hearing the effects of jitter were excused from final testing." So clearly in Dolby's test there were people who had even less sensitivity than the ones used in the above graph.

I have tested literally thousands of people in double blind tests and there are always people with much more critical listening ability. They are often used as expert listeners. Let's look at a sample double blind test of speakers:

QualitySound_Figure1.jpg

The bottom line is for Harman's expert listeners. Compare their 2 score with with 6.5 of students in the top graph. Clearly the experts are hearing artifacts that the students are oblivious to.

Then there is the ability to train to hear artifacts. This is strongly recommended step to allow the person the best chance to hear the impairment. When it comes to non-linear distortions it matters a lot whether you are familiarized with what you re supposed to listen for. Again, the dolby test had a training phase. Unfortunately many so called DBTs lack these critical aspects. They lack a control to weed out the people who can't hear well and do not provide an opportunity for the listeners to learn what they are supposed to be tested for. Of course both of these factors inflate the ratings for the negative outcome. If you are going to test cables for example, first use a cable that does make a difference. Then test people with the cables you really want to test. Throw out the people who could not hear objective differences that were there.

Then there is the issue of hearing range. I used to be an expert listener when it came to compression impairments. I was king of the road in the company and could identify artifacts that almost no one could. But then we got a customer who was complaining about a high-frequency artifact that I absolutely could not hear. We examine the code and found the problem and fixed it and he was happy. But I could not hear it and nor could my development team. So we hired the guy as an expert listener smile.gif.

Now if I were testing linear problems that would be a lot easier. If I filter all the bass out of a track, everyone hears it. And if I don't filter it, then no one would. Similarly if I test an equipment against itself, then everyone would be confused as to any difference existing. But these are the extreme points in the spectrum and one has to have deep knowledge of what is being tested and how to determine their validity.
Quote:
I agree. People should have what pleases them as long as no hardship is involved. Our purpose is not to prevent people from owning audio jewelry. It is simply to have them understand what it is.
Well, was the above understood or not? Where did the knowledge come from that said everyone hears non-linear distortions the same come from? It seems that we are expressing opinions here as strong facts without foundation. This is not an easily understood field. Casual understanding is fine for yourself but when it is stated as the "science" then it becomes problematic when it is so easily disputed with data in this very thread!
Quote:
The problem lies in the industry and the audio press preying on hearing bias.
I don't know that they are preying but rather, believing the same as their readership. But you are right that a lot of what is written is imaginary and subject to considerable amount of bias. At the same time, a lot of what is being passed on from the objectivity camp is folklore and voodoo science. I have noted a number of them in this thread including this post. There is no replacement for years of industry experience and hands on knowledge here. You don't see layman arguing in a group of doctors about efficacy of some medication. Yet when it comes to audio, it seems anyone can read some forum posts and then become a forceful advocate. No amount of correcting them will get them to back off. They will simply move to the next thread "preying" on people who have not heard the big worlds they are using.
Quote:
The problem in audio is that most people do not understand that so they are making their decision based on a false premise that is promulgated by those who sell it.
Exactly. The issue is that both camps fall victim to this. So many people like to think their $50 gear is good enough and walk around with inferiority complex relative to others buying more expensive things. Being males then get us into non-informative discussion of science where they say clearly things that are wrong: "it is all ones and zeros." Well, no, it is not. What is their reaction? Anger and frustration because faced with the real science, they don't know what to say.

Now from reading your posts I consider you more knowledgeable than many but clearly topics like this fall outside of one's domain of expertise.
Audionut11 likes this.

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 #188 of 218 Old 12-10-2013, 05:19 AM
 
Heinrich S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 974
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
I never said what I said to be insulting. I just post what I believe. As long as I articulate my beliefs in a way that is respectful then I think I am entitled to that. Although my beliefs aren't shared by most, I don't feel they should be totally and utterly discarded.

I enjoy music in my own system, using methods that you most likely would call fallacious and unreliable. So be it. I'm not in a position to test it any other way and I can't suspend judgment until that point in time, so I rather enjoy what I have.

Just for the record, I don't believe in Solipsism. I don't think I am the master manipulator behind everyone else's existance or that I imagined everything into being. I just have a view that is very different to most other people.
Heinrich S is offline  
post #189 of 218 Old 12-10-2013, 05:26 AM
 
Heinrich S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 974
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
FMW, what do you mean by beat frequency?
Heinrich S is offline  
post #190 of 218 Old 12-10-2013, 05:35 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,083
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 755 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Except Amir that's also wrong and I have explained that to you in detail how and why in the past. So guess how motivated I now am on that front. ;-)
It was the other way around Arny. I used *your* references in this comprehensive response to demonstrate how wrong it is to compare analog wow and flutter to digital audio jitter: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1340051/seeking-education-about-those-ultra-expensive-interconnects/1830#post_20710842

Here the conclusions from that post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Summary

1.Yes, Flutter and Jitter are forms of FM modulation. For the reasons that it hurts differently if you got hit by a golf ball in the head than a basketball , just because the roots are the same, it doesn't mean perceptual effects are the same. Flutter amplitude is considerably higher and hence, creates a different situation.

2.Modulation index determines the bandwidth of an FM signal and flutter by definition has a wider distortion spectrum than jitter.

3.While frequency masking is alive and well at all times, its effect can sharply be reduced based on modulation index and with it, allowing distortions to be heard that would not otherwise be as audible.

4.Wow and Flutter standardized curves have a 4 Hz maximum importance with the amount dropping on both sides of that center frequency. Therefore Arny's original thesis is invalidated that as flutter frequencies increase, there is a downward slope in audibility of the distortion. He has acknowledged the same although it doesn't look like anyone picked up on that.

5.As I noted many pages back from the well written and simple presentation by FHG, the explanation of 4 Hz peak appears to be very related to temporal masking where the distance between fluctuations determines audibility.

6.There are cases such as jitter aliasing and data dependent jitter that simply have no analog in flutter. So as much as the levels of jitter can be lower than flutter, it can manifest itself in ways flutter cannot. So one has to be very careful in drawing parallels here. (There are other considerations here that I am not covering here just yet.)
After I post that you wrote a bunch of stuff that I responded to here: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1340051/seeking-education-about-those-ultra-expensive-interconnects/1830#post_20713767. That led to this admission on your part:
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Amir, I have already admitted this this was an error in a reply to John Atkinson in post 1768.

That hasn't stopped you from bringing it up several times since then.

Amir, I guess your new strategy is to avoid responding to valid criticism of your new errors by replaying my old error ad nauseum.

You admitted your error in a very clear way. Yet here we are saying the situation was the other way around?
Quote:
Basically Amir you have locked yourself in a logic tight box, and I for one feel no remaining debt to you that would make me want to help you out of it. ;-)
You have no debt to me Arny. You don't have to do anything for me. I am good where I sit in this conversation, having done work to generate data to analyze and got it published with no one coming and disputing it. The question was whether we would ever see you actually run and document a DBT for us. Doesn't seem like that is in our future.
Quote:
Have a nice day!
You too Arny. Appreciate having this discussion with you smile.gif.

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 #191 of 218 Old 12-10-2013, 05:37 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,855
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 271 Post(s)
Liked: 710
In our tests with a panel of experienced audiophiles, we weren't able to get anybody to any hear jitter - ever. None, zero. 200 ns? 200 billionths of a second? Perhaps the difference is we tried to get people to hear jitter in music rather than in a test tone. So I'm willing to accept that jitter is audible in test tones because I've never tested it. But I'm very confident that people can't hear it in music because I have tested that. I stand by what I said. I guess I have to preface everything I say with "in terms of electronic music reproduction...."

Speakers are a different issue. Speakers all display audible differences that everyone can hear. The fact that some people have more experience at listening for audible differences than others is not in question. All of our arguing has been about inaudible differences. We suffer hearing bias when audible differences are either very subtle or non existent. When sonic differences are clearly discernible, the brain behaves as we all expect it to. So doing a blind test with speakers seems a little silly. It isn't necessary because hearing bias doesn't come into play. Using a speaker chart is meaningless to the discussion about hearing bias. Nothing about speakers having inaudible differences has ever been uttered by any of us here. As Arny likes to say, that was a diversion.
FMW is offline  
post #192 of 218 Old 12-10-2013, 05:43 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,855
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 271 Post(s)
Liked: 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S View Post

I never said what I said to be insulting. I just post what I believe. As long as I articulate my beliefs in a way that is respectful then I think I am entitled to that. Although my beliefs aren't shared by most, I don't feel they should be totally and utterly discarded.

I don't think anybody is insulted. Of course you can articulate your beliefs. But if they are beliefs and not facts, then people in this forum are going to criticize them if they go against known facts.
Quote:
I enjoy music in my own system, using methods that you most likely would call fallacious and unreliable. So be it. I'm not in a position to test it any other way and I can't suspend judgment until that point in time, so I rather enjoy what I have.

Nothing wrong with that. The problems occur when people argue opinion and preference against test results. The people on this board put more value on test results. There are boards in which test results are not allowed. The people that post there would embrace your opinions and preferences.
FMW is offline  
post #193 of 218 Old 12-10-2013, 05:55 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,855
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 271 Post(s)
Liked: 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S View Post

FMW, what do you mean by beat frequency?

Put the term in your favorite search engine. A myriad articles will show up explaining it.
FMW is offline  
post #194 of 218 Old 12-10-2013, 08:09 AM
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: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Except Amir that's also wrong and I have explained that to you in detail how and why in the past. So guess how motivated I now am on that front. ;-)
It was the other way around Arny. I used *your* references in this comprehensive response to demonstrate how wrong it is to compare analog wow and flutter to digital audio jitter: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1340051/seeking-education-about-those-ultra-expensive-interconnects/1830#post_20710842

Here the conclusions from that post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Summary

1.Yes, Flutter and Jitter are forms of FM modulation. For the reasons that it hurts differently if you got hit by a golf ball in the head than a basketball , just because the roots are the same, it doesn't mean perceptual effects are the same. Flutter amplitude is considerably higher and hence, creates a different situation.

The expected irrelevant example.
Quote:
2.Modulation index determines the bandwidth of an FM signal and flutter by definition has a wider distortion spectrum than jitter.

A fact that actually works for my side of the argument.
Quote:
3.While frequency masking is alive and well at all times, its effect can sharply be reduced based on modulation index and with it, allowing distortions to be heard that would not otherwise be as audible.

"It can be" is not the same as "it always is". Therfore you skipped a step where you showed that the effect you mention is actually relevant to the problem at hand.
Quote:
4.Wow and Flutter standardized curves have a 4 Hz maximum importance with the amount dropping on both sides of that center frequency. Therefore Arny's original thesis is invalidated that as flutter frequencies increase, there is a downward slope in audibility of the distortion. He has acknowledged the same although it doesn't look like anyone picked up on that.

Ignores the fact that much flutter and wow, particularly in direct drive turntables and analog tape have strong high frequency components.

Quote:
5.As I noted many pages back from the well written and simple presentation by FHG, the explanation of 4 Hz peak appears to be very related to temporal masking where the distance between fluctuations determines audibility.

Same mistake - "appears to be" is not the same as "is always". No actual connection was shown.

Quote:
6.There are cases such as jitter aliasing and data dependent jitter that simply have no analog in flutter. So as much as the levels of jitter can be lower than flutter, it can manifest itself in ways flutter cannot. So one has to be very careful in drawing parallels here. (There are other considerations here that I am not covering here just yet.)

Your third replay of the same fallacious logic Amir, just because there are some differences doesn't mean that everything is different.
Quote:
After I post that you wrote a bunch of stuff that I responded to here: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1340051/seeking-education-about-those-ultra-expensive-interconnects/1830#post_20713767. That led to this admission on your part:
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post


Amir your alleged responses were the usual parry and deflect. Now you claim that I admitted my error because you proved yourself to be correct. Nothing of the sort happened, I just got tired of trying to overcome your usual endless denials of well known facts.

BTW Amir thanks for your recent entertaining denial of the easy-to-establish fact that Microsoft employs physicists!
arnyk is offline  
post #195 of 218 Old 12-10-2013, 09:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,083
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 755 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

The laws of physics are the core of many of the discussions here. We are talking about the physical world, not some metaphysical world.
When I go to my doctor we don’t talk about quantum particles even though that is the physics of what we are made of. By the same token, the appropriate science here is electrical engineering.

But sure, I am happy to consider the laws of physics. Which one explains if the digital input to the DAC is the same, the output will always be the same?
Quote:
That is really pretty strange. When I worked at Chrysler Engineering two of my co-workers had PhDs in physics, and a third had a Masters degree in Physics and later on got a PhD. I find it hard to believe that a car company was more sophisticated and open minded than Microsoft.
I made no reference to managing hardware teams at Microsoft. I had the option of doing that there but thought it was silly to join a major software company and then build a career on hardware! The hardware groups that I managed were at Sony Corporation, Pinnacle Systems (now AVID), and Abekas Video. The development ranged from analog to digital design, mechanical, industrial design, software, hardware, networking, audio, video and EMI/RFI compliance. Some of these products won technical Emmy awards and for a while you probably couldn't watch video on network TV without the signals going through those products. I learned a ton about the fundamentals of technology managing these groups/developments. So no, I am not talking about Microsoft career. Please ask me before making an assumption like this and running with it.

As to car companies, they of course have real need for physicists. Structural design, analysis and material science can all benefit from knowledge of physics. That is not a statement of sophistication but rather, differing technology field and need. If you have physicists designing DACs and audio/video gear, that would be a relevant example.
Quote:
Apparently Amir you don't know about his guy:Video. http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/people/tonyhey/
I don’t know Tony (he is from UK not redmond headquarters) but knew his boss and founder of Microsoft Research (MSR), Rick Rashid exceptionally well. Our groups worked very closely together and I very much enjoyed interacting with him (I managed a large team of signal processing and compression PhDs which all had ties to MSR). Rick started the roots of what led to the creation of the division that I managed (Digital Video Division) and provides a kind mention in his corporate bio: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/people/rashid/

”He managed projects that catalyzed the development of Microsoft's interactive TV system and also directed Microsoft's first e-commerce group. Rashid was the driving force behind the creation of the team that later developed into Microsoft's Digital Media Division.

Rick recently moved to the operating system group but while at MSR, he hired people from all disciplines including those with physics background. But none of them designed hardware. So again not a relevant example.
Quote:
The two are not mutually exclusive. My co-workers who were degreed Physicists worked on the same projects as I did and we had similar responsibilities. In some cases I didn't know that they were physicists until after I had worked with them for a while.
If you didn’t know they were physicists, then it reasons that they never talked to you about physics! biggrin.gif Let me know when you have an example of them designing consumer electronics. Not just the fact that they worked at some company with you.
Quote:
It's just like Vanderkooy and Lipshitz the famous AES writers and lecturers - One is a physicist and the other is a mathematician, but you don't know about it when you see them work together.
I have incredible respect for both. I have heard them speak and read their papers. I have yet to see them invoke the “laws of physics” to describe such concepts as dither or jitter. Instead they use signal processing, statistics, mathematics and engineering concepts. So again, an irrelevant example.

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 #196 of 218 Old 12-11-2013, 07:39 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,083
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 755 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

In our tests with a panel of experienced audiophiles, we weren't able to get anybody to any hear jitter - ever. None, zero.
Congratulations. Blind tests of jitter can be very difficult to orchestrate. For that reason, it is very easy to find major flaws in published tests. Do you mind explaining how you went about it? Thanks in advance.
Quote:
200 ns? 200 billionths of a second?
Not sure what you mean. 200 ns represents distortions that peak up to -47 db. That is 50 db higher than the noise floor of 16-bit audio CD. It is actually at the noise floor of an 8 bit system! So I hope you are not saying that is the level of fidelity we need to strive at.
Quote:
Perhaps the difference is we tried to get people to hear jitter in music rather than in a test tone. So I'm willing to accept that jitter is audible in test tones because I've never tested it. But I'm very confident that people can't hear it in music because I have tested that. I stand by what I said. I guess I have to preface everything I say with "in terms of electronic music reproduction...."
Can't hear what in music? Jitter is not one thing so you can never talk about it in this manner.
Quote:
Speakers are a different issue. Speakers all display audible differences that everyone can hear. The fact that some people have more experience at listening for audible differences than others is not in question.
I thought that was the question. You said everyone hears the same thing. Have you taken the blind tests from Harman's "how to hear" program? If not, this is a cool little program where it has a multi-band eq and changes the levels of different ones and asks you to state which band you think has been adjusted. It starts easy with wide bandwidth EQ. But then keeps making them narrower and narrower. The first time I took it, I could get up to level 4. I practiced a bit. Next time I took it was at Harman with Dr. Sean Olive himself driving it. I was part of a group of audio dealers. None could even get to level 4. I managed to get to level 8 or so. But darn it, Sean went past me! He said their expert listeners must get to level 12 or they can't do their job. Training allows one to become a much better listener. I am hoping your protocol included teaching people what jitter sounds like so that they could recognize it at lower levels.
Quote:
We suffer hearing bias when audible differences are either very subtle or non existent.
I don't know who is included in that "we." I once commissioned a large scale test of audio compression. Something like 90% of the people thought 64 kbps was as good as the CD! Do you think 64 kbps is the same as CD? I assume not. Yet, an outside agency ran the test with full compliance with ITU BS1116 recommendations for double blind testing. Only someone with deep knowledge of how audio compression would know why we got such high numbers. Yes we are not talking about gross distortions. For general public, none of this is a concern. But for folks who spend time here, it might be.
Quote:
When sonic differences are clearly discernible, the brain behaves as we all expect it to. So doing a blind test with speakers seems a little silly. It isn't necessary because hearing bias doesn't come into play.
Of course it is necessary for speakers. You think people are not biased by the look, size, brand and color of a speaker? Here is an authoritative test by Harman conducted by Dr. Olive that shows how there is clear bias in sighted speaker tests:

120503-BlindvsSighted.jpg?itok=Wf6a9Ny1

As you see, both speakers S and T changed their scores from sighted to double blind. Even when ranking was not changed, there was a big difference in audio rating. I highly suggest that you sit through a double blind test of speakers. If you take the one at Harman you would likely put your B&W speakers up for sale smile.gif.
Quote:
Using a speaker chart is meaningless to the discussion about hearing bias. Nothing about speakers having inaudible differences has ever been uttered by any of us here. As Arny likes to say, that was a diversion.
I hope you now agree it was no diversion. To think bias takes a back seat for speakers makes little sense if you think about it. We are so brainwashed in this forum that double blind testing is just about fighting audiophiles that we miss what they are really about.

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 #197 of 218 Old 12-12-2013, 04:16 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,855
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 271 Post(s)
Liked: 710
Sorry, I'm not going to respond to all of that. I have enough antagonists in life already. Let it suffice that, for me, the purpose of blind testing is to uncover audible differences, not to test preference. We aren't talking about the same things and I won't allow you to post straw men in order to assuage your ego. You can continue doing that with Arny. I'm not going to play.
67jason likes this.
FMW is offline  
post #198 of 218 Old 12-12-2013, 07:56 AM
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: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

Sorry, I'm not going to respond to all of that. I have enough antagonists in life already. Let it suffice that, for me, the purpose of blind testing is to uncover audible differences, not to test preference. We aren't talking about the same things and I won't allow you to post straw men in order to assuage your ego. You can continue doing that with Arny. I'm not going to play.

Actually, blind testing makes a ton of sense for either purpose, its just that you need to use the right kind of blind test for the kind of test that you are interested in. Horses for courses. I find Harman's blind tests of speakers to be sensible.

I've done some blind testing of speakers and I very much appreciated being freed from having to ignore the fact that one speaker looked pretty ordinary and the other was gorgeous. The goal was to judge based on sound quality, and the DBT made that easier to do.
arnyk is offline  
post #199 of 218 Old 12-12-2013, 08:47 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,855
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 271 Post(s)
Liked: 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Actually, blind testing makes a ton of sense for either purpose, its just that you need to use the right kind of blind test for the kind of test that you are interested in. Horses for courses. I find Harman's blind tests of speakers to be sensible.

I've done some blind testing of speakers and I very much appreciated being freed from having to ignore the fact that one speaker looked pretty ordinary and the other was gorgeous. The goal was to judge based on sound quality, and the DBT made that easier to do.

I agree with you Arny. My problem was answering issues related to testing audible differences with preference tests. A preference test is a different animal and unrelated to everything I've ever written on this forum. I'm going to stop responding to Amir and ignore any future responses from him. I don't want to play those games. Take care.
FMW is offline  
post #200 of 218 Old 12-12-2013, 10:14 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,083
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 755 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

Sorry, I'm not going to respond to all of that. I have enough antagonists in life already. Let it suffice that, for me, the purpose of blind testing is to uncover audible differences, not to test preference. We aren't talking about the same things and I won't allow you to post straw men in order to assuage your ego. You can continue doing that with Arny. I'm not going to play.
I appreciate your concern for my feelings that way. Alas, it is unnecessary. No matter how people respond to me, insults and all like your reference to my ego, I let them pass me smile.gif. I find it a healthy thing to be able to defend what I say technically. It teaches me whether I understand the topic well enough or not. I appreciate that not everyone is that way and prefer to state technical things and then withdraw. Appreciate you putting up with me this much smile.gif. Please kindly note that if you say something technical I will comment on it as I write these detailed posts for the benefit of everyone, and not the specific member I am addressing. So feel free to ignore the responses but please don't ask me to do the same with respect to technical statements you may make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

I agree with you Arny. My problem was answering issues related to testing audible differences with preference tests. A preference test is a different animal and unrelated to everything I've ever written on this forum. I'm going to stop responding to Amir and ignore any future responses from him. I don't want to play those games. Take care.
I provided that example because you said everyone hears the same. Wasn't meant to be taken beyond that in this context. The data clearly shows that some people hear much better than others. I have been in countless double blind test and know first hand that some people have better ability than others in hearing artifacts.

To give you further data close to home, here is an example double blind test that was run on AVS Forum: http://www.avsforum.com/t/908161/audio-dbt-1-summary#post_11621663
The interesting bit there is the comment in red that states there was an error in the protocol. While all the files were supposed to be different, I could not distinguish between two of them. Others, including top industry people thought they sounded different. When I sent my result to Steve who created that test via PM, his answer was, "you could have done worse" meaning I was wrong. When he revealed the results, I knew it could not be right. I mentioned that to him and he said it can't be. So I showed him a binary comparison that demonstrated the files were identical. He looked back and found out that he had copied the same file twice! There were others by the way that voted the same way I did. But there were also plenty who didn't. So again, the notion that we all hear the same thing is not true. The error in protocol was not a preference thing. You either knew the files were the same or not. It took conviction to know that despite the instructions provided, the files had to be the same.

Again, I appreciate you walking off but please don't put a spin on the information on the way out as if your assessment is still right. It simply is not and not backed by any data to inform it. It is a hard truth to accept that there are people with superior hearing ability but it is a truism.

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 #201 of 218 Old 12-12-2013, 11:10 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,855
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 271 Post(s)
Liked: 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post


Again, I appreciate you walking off but please don't put a spin on the information on the way out as if your assessment is still right. It simply is not and not backed by any data to inform it. It is a hard truth to accept that there are people with superior hearing ability but it is a truism.

Arny has a lot of patience. Certainly more than I do. I said hearing ability has never been a factor in any of our blind tests. All the people who participated got similar scores regardless of their hearing. Hearing is equal in terms of the scores we recorded in blind tests. And no, we didn't have everyone's hearing tested. I have never said that peoples' preferences are the same yet you intimated that above. Best of luck to you.
Speed Daemon likes this.
FMW is offline  
post #202 of 218 Old 12-12-2013, 11:20 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,083
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 755 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

Arny has a lot of patience. Certainly more than I do. I said hearing ability has never been a factor in any of our blind tests. All the people who participated got similar scores regardless of their hearing. Hearing is equal in terms of the scores we recorded in blind tests. And no, we didn't have everyone's hearing tested. I have never said that peoples' preferences are the same yet you intimated that above. Best of luck to you.
Well, that is not what I was answering. This was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

No, Heinrich, that doesn't wash. The "dual" reality you espouse disappears in a properly designed bias controlled test. When bias is removed, we all do or do not hear audible differences exactly the same way. We don't get different results from different people. What is audible to one person is audible to another. What is not audible is not.
Clearly you were lecturing Heinrich on some absolute in our hearing ability, not some anecdotal data based on undocumented personal test with your friends.

And once more, the speaker test that I showed you has nothing to do with preference. Expert listeners could identify variations from smooth response far better than non-skilled ones. They were not saying, "oh, I like this sound more or less." And recall that I also showed you the Dolby test results that Arny had cited. There, it showed different thresholds of jitter detection for different individuals (both tones and music). If you had documented how you tested jitter, we could see if you had done something smarter than Dolby but since you have not, we will have to put more of our trust in the documented and published test. Remember, it is insanely easy to get negative outcomes in audio tests. The trick is to make sure that a positive outcome can be gotten at some level. Without that control, you have no idea if you have mistakes in your tests like I cited in my last example. Or have picked stimulus that is not revealing.

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 #203 of 218 Old 12-12-2013, 11:20 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,083
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 755 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

Arny has a lot of patience. Certainly more than I do. I said hearing ability has never been a factor in any of our blind tests. All the people who participated got similar scores regardless of their hearing. Hearing is equal in terms of the scores we recorded in blind tests. And no, we didn't have everyone's hearing tested. I have never said that peoples' preferences are the same yet you intimated that above. Best of luck to you.
Well, that is not what I was answering. This was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

No, Heinrich, that doesn't wash. The "dual" reality you espouse disappears in a properly designed bias controlled test. When bias is removed, we all do or do not hear audible differences exactly the same way. We don't get different results from different people. What is audible to one person is audible to another. What is not audible is not.
As you see, I was responding to you lecturing Heinrich on some absolute truth in audio regarding our hearing ability and not some anecdotal data you have from a test with your friends that you are not documenting.

And once more, the speaker test data has nothing to do with preference in this context. The expert listeners are able to hear deviations from reference response better than non-skilled people. They are not saying, "oh, I like this better or not." Recall that I also showed you individual data from the Dolby test Arny had cited. Since that was a test of jitter like yours, and showed differing thresholds for jitter, not sure what excuse there is to ignore that as good evidence of us hearing differently.

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 #204 of 218 Old 12-12-2013, 06:37 PM
Senior Member
 
Speed Daemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
This reminds me of a test of exotic speaker cables, where solid copper wires of the same time that runs AC power through your walls won the competition. cool.gif

You get what you pay for.  For professional advice, pay the professional rate.
Speed Daemon is offline  
post #205 of 218 Old 12-12-2013, 07:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
whoaru99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,960
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post


And once more, the speaker test that I showed you has nothing to do with preference.

Is that Harman"s test above, in post 187, or your test, or?

If it is about artifacts not preference, as you assert, why is the Y axis scale labeled "Preference Rating"?

I've read though a few of Harman's (Olive and or Toole) papers and they seem to indicate their Preference Rating is simply that.

Just because there is a knob doesn't mean you should turn it.
whoaru99 is offline  
post #206 of 218 Old 12-16-2013, 12:04 AM
 
Heinrich S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 974
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Something I've always wanted to know, do high-end recording studios use exotic speaker cable, or do they use commodity cable? Any examples of studios that use regular stuff? What kind of cable would they use?
Heinrich S is offline  
post #207 of 218 Old 12-16-2013, 03:58 AM
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: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S View Post

Something I've always wanted to know, do high-end recording studios use exotic speaker cable, or do they use commodity cable? Any examples of studios that use regular stuff? What kind of cable would they use?

Almost all recording studios of any kind use commodity high grade cable for speakers (e.g. 12 gauge stranded wire) and other signals (e.g. standard shielded 2 conductor wire). In those few cases where a studio uses high end audiophile cable, they were usually induced to do so, possibly by being given free wire.

Commonly used brands are Belden, West Penn or Canaire. Professional users are picky about practical things like using foil shielded wire for installed cables, and braided shield cable for loose interconnects because that relates to durability and cost.
arnyk is offline  
post #208 of 218 Old 12-16-2013, 11:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,953
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 215
In some installations such as movie theaters and studio dub stages, they will use standard THHN electrical wire. In some localities commercial high power amplifiers must have the speakers wired to quasi class 1 standards because of the voltage and current available. That means conduit must be used and exposed wire has maximum distance allowed, about three feet.

Copper is copper at audio frequencies and there is no audible difference between 14to10ga fancy audiophile wire and ordinary 14to10ga electrical wire. So it works equally well.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is offline  
post #209 of 218 Old 12-16-2013, 11:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,953
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S View Post

Something I've always wanted to know, do high-end recording studios use exotic speaker cable, or do they use commodity cable? Any examples of studios that use regular stuff? What kind of cable would they use?

The standard line level audio wire is Belden 9451. This stuff (the 8451 version) has been around since the 1950s and has only changed in jacket formulation over the years to meet fire code changes. Trillions of feet if this stuff have been installed in recording studios, radio and TV broadcast, and commercial sound systems over the last half century. I'm sure other industries use it too for general purpose balanced cable at audio frequencies.

22ga pair with foil shield and 22ga drain wire. 60ohms nominal impedance. Cost is about $200 per 1000 feet wholesale. All the major commercial cable manufactures make an equivalent version.

8450- solid wire
8451- stranded wire
9450- solid wire with bonded foil, that means the foil breaks away with the jacket for easier installation.
9541- stranded version of 9450

The 94xx version which came out in the 1980s and also introduced 10 jacket colors. Before that it was either black or gray. Electrically it is identical to the 84xx version.

Show me an audiophile cable that has enjoyed a run like that!

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is offline  
post #210 of 218 Old 12-17-2013, 12:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DonH50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Monument CO
Posts: 6,089
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 262
9451, not 9541 (typo above)... And the latest 9451 spec is 45 ohms for whatever silly reason. I always thought the series a little high in capacitance but works fine at audio! The foil shield for 100% coverage is another reason it is so popular compared to cheaper braided shield cable.

http://www.belden.com/techdatas/english/9451.pdf

And boy was I glad when they started making it in colors, though of course by then everybody had figured out their own scheme to identify the ends, be it colored tape, number of tape strips at the end, labels/tags, whatever...


Arny, "Canare" (no "i").

All I'm good for today is correcting typos, sorry!

"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley
DonH50 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