Bi-amping B&W CM10 - Page 10 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #271 of 651 Old 03-29-2014, 07:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DonH50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Monument CO
Posts: 5,919
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 231
Thanks Arny.

I few years ago I did a lot of searching but ended up with R+D for room analysis. It is not cheap but at least it is accurate. I got frustrated with several free or very cheap programs; N.B. I did not try REW at that time. I somehow missed it in my search and did not find out about it until later. Still, I'd love to have a general-purpose audio analysis program that I could play with. I have looked half-heartedly now and then but have not played much, too busy with other things. There are some SW programs that emulate various test instruments. I use Mathcad at home (and work) and have access to Matlab at work but, while very powerful, those programs require a lot of up-front work as they are more general-purpose than targeting just audio analysis. I actually had a beta of COMSOL at one time but again that is not the thing for just basic audio analysis. I have piddled with Audacity but not seriously. Not enough time in the day!

Yeah, putting kids through college and realizing we are a longer way from retiring financially than calender-wise has us cutting back and saving more. We have church friends who have gotten badly hurt by the economy and new health care plans and have gone back to work after being retired for a few years. It is not a friendly environment for older job seekers. Enough of that.

...

Amir has all sorts of cool toys, I am almost afraid to hear his response... smile.gif

"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley
DonH50 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of 651 Old 03-31-2014, 11:35 PM
Newbie
 
Brotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have a bi-amped pair of CM10s. I read all about how the difference is minimal with passive biamping. I had a different experience,

When I went to a biamped setup just playing around with the 5 channel Rotel RB-1585, the entire sound of the speaker changed. I tested side by side along with my wife and we both agreed that the different was night and day. On the singularly amped speaker, the midrange and high frequencies were muffled and the bass was boomy. On the biamped speaker, the midrange completely opened up and seemed to be limited in no way by the speaker or and just drifted on air. The bass was quieter but more precise. No boomyness.

I am giving each speaker 200 watt capacity per channel (400watts per speaker) and the sound is phenomenal. It is so crisp that it borderline hurts my ears, I am far more sensitive to subtle sounds outside of my house after using these speakers.

I did need to lower the dB of the mid/high by 1 db on overly bright music like Green Day and Ronald Jenkees. But for everything else, the supreme clarity of the mid/highs is a daily treat.

The bass goes deep enough for most music but for bass-licious songs like "Goodnight, Sweet Ladies" by Emilie Autumn and Ronald Jenkees' "Sidetracked," require a sub to reproduce with accuracy. I tried a 40hz crossover with the ASWCM10 so that I would have stereo separation in the low frequencies, but the bass curve wasn't as smooth as with an 80Hz crossover (using JRiver).

Overall an amazing speaker, makes my day, daily. I need to figure out a way to soften the mid/highs on overly bright music, but besides that, I am incredibly satisfied. JRiver + exaSound e28 + Rotel RB-1585 + Biamped CM10's is an insane setup for precision clarity. Sometimes I find myself enjoying the simple nature of my Klipsch computer speakers simply because I am not tasked with translating a sound that is so detailed it makes my brain spin at times.

Biamping does make a difference and in my case allowed the mid/high to have no constraint and the bass to be quieter but amazingly accurate. Much preferred to my ears and I won't go back. At this point I am saving for Legacy Aeris which I heard this past weekend. I would sell my car for a pair of those if I didn't need to drive everywhere.

I did try a Rotel RMB1552 mkii for the high frequencies so as to limit the wattage of 200wpc, but the balance was all off and the highs were mismatched with the lows. Just didn't jive after listening carefully for an hour or so. The speakers perform much better with the same amp powering both channels, at least in my case. The 200wpc Rotel 5 channel amp is splendid and it amplifies my center channel, too!

E.S. Posthumous sounds fantastic on these speakers, as does Emilie Autumn, Rob Dougan, and Tuomas Holopainen. Biamped and not going back. I would skip rear channels if I had to give something up. CM10 was designed for biamping, I am now certain. I would be happy to answer any question regarding this setup as I am very happy with it.
Brotus is offline  
post #273 of 651 Old 04-01-2014, 05:14 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 639
It is amazing how convincing hearing bias can be.
FMW is online now  
post #274 of 651 Old 04-01-2014, 05:54 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 403 Post(s)
Liked: 1047
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

It is amazing how convincing hearing bias can be.

+1

I call it Constructor's Ear, and of course I've experienced it myself with my own projects.

ABX was invented to deal with exactly this problem. It's 1975 or so and a bunch of guys in the Detroit area trying to get an home audio equipment builder's club off of the ground.

People bring their projects to club meetings. How long does it take for a, umm discussion along the lines of "My amp sounds better than yours" to break out?

As serious as these are for people who buy amps how much ego is at stake if you designed and built the amp from scratch?

Was I as bold and vociferous as anybody? ;-)

As they say, the rest is history.
arnyk is online now  
post #275 of 651 Old 04-01-2014, 06:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,532
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 500 Post(s)
Liked: 1230
kbarnes701 is online now  
post #276 of 651 Old 04-01-2014, 07:24 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,768
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Liked: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

+1

I call it Constructor's Ear, and of course I've experienced it myself with my own projects.

ABX was invented to deal with exactly this problem. It's 1975 or so and a bunch of guys in the Detroit area trying to get an home audio equipment builder's club off of the ground.

People bring their projects to club meetings. How long does it take for a, umm discussion along the lines of "My amp sounds better than yours" to break out?

As serious as these are for people who buy amps how much ego is at stake if you designed and built the amp from scratch?

Was I as bold and vociferous as anybody? ;-)

As they say, the rest is history.
Do you have an ABX of bi-amping you can share with us Arny?

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #277 of 651 Old 04-01-2014, 10:43 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 403 Post(s)
Liked: 1047
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

+1

I call it Constructor's Ear, and of course I've experienced it myself with my own projects.

ABX was invented to deal with exactly this problem. It's 1975 or so and a bunch of guys in the Detroit area trying to get an home audio equipment builder's club off of the ground.

People bring their projects to club meetings. How long does it take for a, umm discussion along the lines of "My amp sounds better than yours" to break out?

As serious as these are for people who buy amps how much ego is at stake if you designed and built the amp from scratch?

Was I as bold and vociferous as anybody? ;-)

As they say, the rest is history.
Do you have an ABX of bi-amping you can share with us Arny?

Nope. But I'm the wrong guy to do that because I'm a critic of passive biamping, not an advocate. If a critic comes up with a test saying no audible differences, I already know what happens! ;-)
arnyk is online now  
post #278 of 651 Old 04-01-2014, 11:23 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,768
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Liked: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Nope. But I'm the wrong guy to do that because I'm a critic of passive biamping, not an advocate. If a critic comes up with a test saying no audible differences, I already know what happens! ;-)
Thanks. You are right on that. I am puzzled though that you brought up the topic of ABX then if your conclusions are not based on that data.

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #279 of 651 Old 04-01-2014, 05:17 PM
Senior Member
 
UndersAVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 259
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 35
I'm reminded of the 1987 Stereo Review Blind Listening Test involving amps and stereo receivers. Prior to the listening test, participants were allowed to visually examine the setup and the components while listening to music selections, and then record their observations regarding sound qualities for each of the components.

At this point, though some of the participants had already indicated that they didn't believe much difference could heard between the various amps, they began to change their minds. Remarks concerning the $6,000 Futterman mono-blocks included: "sweetest top end, greatest depth, this amp's ability to increase the sound-stage width was incredible." The $219 and 19 cent 45wpc Pioneer stereo receiver was described: "less top end, less attack, constricted sound, sounds distorted."

As it turned out... No one could reliably distinguish between the two amps during the blind eval.

http://webpages.charter.net/fryguy/Amp_Sound.pdf
UndersAVS is offline  
post #280 of 651 Old 04-02-2014, 04:38 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 403 Post(s)
Liked: 1047
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Nope. But I'm the wrong guy to do that because I'm a critic of passive biamping, not an advocate. If a critic comes up with a test saying no audible differences, I already know what happens! ;-)
Thanks. You are right on that. I am puzzled though that you brought up the topic of ABX then if your conclusions are not based on that data.

Contrary to the kind of posturing some favor, ABX is not the be-all or end-all. A lot of things can be figured out by reasonable application of the relevant science.
arnyk is online now  
post #281 of 651 Old 04-02-2014, 07:17 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,768
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Liked: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Contrary to the kind of posturing some favor, ABX is not the be-all or end-all. A lot of things can be figured out by reasonable application of the relevant science.
Again, I agree. Given that, let's not posture with ABX stories when we don't have any ABX data to offer relative to the topic being discussed. Is this too much to ask?

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #282 of 651 Old 04-02-2014, 10:46 AM
Senior Member
 
Jon Middleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Wow, ten pages about biamping? CM10's? I don't understand why the OP thinks those are difficult speakers to drive. Why do people say that? Even 75WPC should drive them to uncomfortable levels. Never understood the biamping, biwiring issue either. Seems like a BS way to sell more product. Electronics, unless they're poorly designed, poorly built, or damaged, are essentially flat. It's just a question of how much too much power you want to pay for, the price you're willing to pay for build quality, aesthetics, support, etc. I'm under no delusions that the above mentioned Behringer would be indistinguishable in blind listening tests from any other amp. But, if your wallet and taste justify spending more, well, it's your money. Enjoy it. I highly recommend the Bryston 4B SST. Not for it's sonic signature, because it has none. But it brings a smile every time I look at it, and that's good enough. It's cool as hell.
CruelInventions likes this.
Jon Middleton is offline  
post #283 of 651 Old 04-02-2014, 12:16 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 403 Post(s)
Liked: 1047
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Contrary to the kind of posturing some favor, ABX is not the be-all or end-all. A lot of things can be figured out by reasonable application of the relevant science.
Again, I agree. Given that, let's not posture with ABX stories when we don't have any ABX data to offer relative to the topic being discussed. Is this too much to ask?

Unlike some people, the mention of ABX does not cause me an instant migraine headache. It is a tool, and works well when properly applied such as for resolving hotly contended viewpoints among people with a lot invested in the discussion. In context the mention was perfectly reasonable. This constant nit-picking! If the parties to these forums were all in the same metro area, it would be feasible to set up an ABX test and cut to the chase.
arnyk is online now  
post #284 of 651 Old 04-02-2014, 03:53 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,768
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Liked: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Unlike some people, the mention of ABX does not cause me an instant migraine headache. It is a tool, and works well when properly applied such as for resolving hotly contended viewpoints among people with a lot invested in the discussion. In context the mention was perfectly reasonable. This constant nit-picking! If the parties to these forums were all in the same metro area, it would be feasible to set up an ABX test and cut to the chase.
So it was too much to ask smile.gif. I don't get a migraine headache when you mention it in every other post Arny. I worry however that we lose credibility as a camp when it is used hoping the other side doesn't question it, showing that we have not used the very tool we advocate. If you don't care about us losing objectivity that way, I understand.

As to folks being in the right metro area and doing the test, how would you go about setting up the test fixture?

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #285 of 651 Old 04-02-2014, 05:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JHAz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 146
Whatcha sellin?
I trust bob katz almost implicitly but he is selling services. A grain of salt is always right. Always.
JHAz is offline  
post #286 of 651 Old 04-03-2014, 04:38 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 403 Post(s)
Liked: 1047
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Unlike some people, the mention of ABX does not cause me an instant migraine headache. It is a tool, and works well when properly applied such as for resolving hotly contended viewpoints among people with a lot invested in the discussion. In context the mention was perfectly reasonable. This constant nit-picking! If the parties to these forums were all in the same metro area, it would be feasible to set up an ABX test and cut to the chase.
So it was too much to ask smile.gif. I don't get a migraine headache when you mention it in every other post Arny. I worry however that we lose credibility as a camp when it is used hoping the other side doesn't question it, showing that we have not used the very tool we advocate. If you don't care about us losing objectivity that way, I understand.

As to folks being in the right metro area and doing the test, how would you go about setting up the test fixture?

Test fixture for what test?

Amir, you are in my opinion most definitely not an appropriate or relevant spokesperson for the pro-DBT viewpoint. The AVS record shows little but both categorical and personal criticism and also no hands-on involvement with DBTs, ever. The leading stumbling block to setting up DBTs is access to equipment related to the issue and also access to audio systems and listeners of such a nature that they would be acceptable to the other side. If a person who claims intimate involvement with a high end audio dealer/installer is not such a person, I don't know who would be.

This statement: " I worry however that we lose credibility as a camp when it is used hoping the other side doesn't question it, showing that we have not used the very tool we advocate. If you don't care about us losing objectivity that way, I understand. " IMO starts out with a misplaced we and goes downhill from there.

But to address this new made-up issue, I see no evidence that anybody who is pro DBT who hopes that they won't actually be used. I would love to see DBTs be used more frequently and I have encouraged their usage in any way that I could reasonably do so.
kbarnes701 and 67jason like this.
arnyk is online now  
post #287 of 651 Old 04-03-2014, 08:04 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,768
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Liked: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Test fixture for what test?
This one Arny:
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

If the parties to these forums were all in the same metro area, it would be feasible to set up an ABX test and cut to the chase.
You said it was feasible to set up an ABX test. I am asking for an explanation of the set up for that test so that people know what to build.
Quote:
Amir, you are in my opinion most definitely not an appropriate or relevant spokesperson for the pro-DBT viewpoint. The AVS record shows little but both categorical and personal criticism and also no hands-on involvement with DBTs, ever. The leading stumbling block to setting up DBTs is access to equipment related to the issue and also access to audio systems and listeners of such a nature that they would be acceptable to the other side. If a person who claims intimate involvement with a high end audio dealer/installer is not such a person, I don't know who would be.
I am sorry my posts come across to you that way Arny. I am a strong supporter of blind testing when it comes to audio. Let there be no doubt about that.

As to Madrona Digital, I will venture to say there is not one other system integrator's web site that talks about double blind testing on their web site as much as we do. Here are some examples: http://www.madronadigital.com/Showroom/HomeTheater.html

"You may have heard of room optimization logic that exists in traditional mass market products. Alas, while they can improve the audio at times, their capability is highly limited due to cost restrictions. Blind testing done by Harman, the parent company of JBL, shows that some of these systems are actually worse than doing nothing at all!"

Here is another example: http://www.madronadigital.com/Showroom/Revel%20Performa3%20Speakers.html

"When we put listeners in (blind) controlled testing, we discover that there are key traits that lead to the listener voting one speaker more realistic than another."

And http://www.madronadigital.com/Products/architectural.html

"As with other Revel products, they are fully engineered in house and go through rigorous blind testing to make sure they outperform all competing products."

But wait, there is more smile.gif: http://www.madronadigital.com/Products/audio/audio.html

"Revel speakers are at the pinnacle of sound reproduction. Their extremely low distortion provides a superbly enjoyable musical experience. Designed using objective double-blind studies..."

I hope this eases your concern regarding my stance on blind testing. If I say the above to our potential customers, you better believe that it is core to my audio beliefs. I have written all the pages on our web site by the way.
Quote:
This statement: " I worry however that we lose credibility as a camp when it is used hoping the other side doesn't question it, showing that we have not used the very tool we advocate. If you don't care about us losing objectivity that way, I understand. " IMO starts out with a misplaced we and goes downhill from there.
Appreciate your concern Arny but I think you are equating me questioning something you said as being synonymous with questioning validity of double blind testing. I don't know how you arrive at that. At the risk of stating the obvious, one is a methodology and the other a person smile.gif. People should be free to question us without the implication being that we throw them out of the camp if they do. This is the nature of this forum and this subforum specifically. We question each other and discuss the topic.

I live by a line I learned when I was a teenager: "If you can't criticize something, you don't know it well enough!" Years ago, I made the mistake of accepting the offer to write a book once about Unix. In there, I point out flaw after flaw in its instrumentations for determining the computer performance. To make sure no one takes that criticism as me not liking my beloved Unix operating system (grand daddy of Linux), I wrote that very line in the preface.

i-pjQ2SV4.png

It is my strong belief that we need to be fully transparent about any flaws that exist in our camp. The limitation of any test needs to be front and center before results are accepted. In this argument it appeared to me that we were try to imply there were ABX test results when in reality it seems there were none. And asking how one would create such a test has turned into me having to spit about the above smile.gif. Let's be upfront about these things. If we have never created an ABX for passive bi-amping, let's say it. Implying that it is easy for folks to get together and run it when we have not comes across as non-sincere. I apologize for using that word smile.gif. But that is how I read it and I worry that others will too.
Quote:
But to address this new made-up issue, I see no evidence that anybody who is pro DBT who hopes that they won't actually be used. I would love to see DBTs be used more frequently and I have encouraged their usage in any way that I could reasonably do so.
I too have the same wish. The problem is that we mention the words ABX about a million times more than actually showing their results. Current discussion is a good example. A bunch of back and forth on ABX but no test results related to the topic at hand. Do you believe that is the right way to discuss science?

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #288 of 651 Old 04-03-2014, 11:58 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 403 Post(s)
Liked: 1047
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

A bunch of back and forth on ABX but no test results related to the topic at hand. Do you believe that is the right way to discuss science?

Please get back when you've personally run and participated in as many ABX tests as I have, Amir. OK, 1/50th as many will do. ;-)
arnyk is online now  
post #289 of 651 Old 04-03-2014, 06:36 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,768
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Liked: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Please get back when you've personally run and participated in as many ABX tests as I have, Amir.
Not sure what that has to do with anything. But sure. Where can I read the reports for those ABX tests Arny?
Quote:
OK, 1/50th as many will do. ;-)
OK, here is one that I participated in on AVS Forum: http://www.avsforum.com/t/908161/audio-dbt-1-summary#post_11621658. New forum software has screwed up the list of people who took the test from formatting point of view but you can still see my name in there.

Importantly note this part of OP's post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaesare View Post

PLEASE NOTE: DUE TO A WORKFLOW ERROR THE ORIGINAL RESULTS AND ANAYSIS ARE INCORRECT. CORRECTIONS BELOW WILL BE FORTHCOMING AS I HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO RE-ANALYZE THE RESULTS.

[...]
ANSWERS

Well, after the delay, lets get right to it.

He original file was a rip from CD to an uncompressed 16 bit .wav file. Here are how the files were encoded:


Track #1 192Kbps CBR .wma
Track #2 Original un-encoded .wav file
Track #3 320Kbps CBR .wma
Track #4 192Kbps CBR .wma after having a 1.5:1 compressor set at -24db threshold and overall output raised 3db


Track #1 192Kbps CBR .wma
Track #2 192Kbps CBR .wma
Track #3 320Kbps CBR .wma
Track #4 192Kbps CBR .wma after having a 1.5:1 compressor set at -24db threshold and overall output raised 3db

As you see, the original track list was wrong. I was the person who caught his mistake through listening tests, identifying the first two as identical. He told me my vote was incorrect. I proved to him I was not prompting him to examine what files he had uploaded. It was then that he realized he had uploaded the same file twice.

Folks take results of blind tests as gospel and don't even consider operator error. Sadly many blind tests that get talked about lack a critical factor: a control. You need something in there to tell you if you are making mistakes in how you have created the test. You also need others to review your test for correctness. People are so fixated on the results, especially if they match their preconceptions, that they run with them even when serious mistakes are made.

OK, it is your turn Arny. Do you have one of these on AVS Forum? Or any other forum? If not, I think I have won the game biggrin.gif.

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #290 of 651 Old 04-03-2014, 07:25 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 403 Post(s)
Liked: 1047
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Please get back when you've personally run and participated in as many ABX tests as I have, Amir.
Not sure what that has to do with anything. But sure. Where can I read the reports for those ABX tests Arny?

You have already dismissed all of the written reports that exist. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
arnyk is online now  
post #291 of 651 Old 04-03-2014, 07:43 PM
Senior Member
 
Jon Middleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Blind listening tests are merely the application of the Scientific Method to audio. To say that audio shouldn't be exposed to the bright light of science is unscientific, ie, stupid. Subjectivists argue against utilizing blinded listening tests because such tests have repeatedly shown that subjective reviews of components are complete BS. That's bad for business, of course, so they will never shut up. Think what would happen to companies like Transparent, Audioquest, et al, if rags like Stereophile applied science to reviews.
Jon Middleton is offline  
post #292 of 651 Old 04-03-2014, 08:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,768
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Liked: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

You have already dismissed all of the written reports that exist. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
I can't dismiss what does not exist Arny. You have only told us about one test that you were part of 30 years ago. That is the sum total of all the tests you have ever documented. I have accepted the one test at face value for now. Just want to be absolutely sure that you have no other ones to describe, outline, or report on. If a prolific poster like you has not documented any other blind test, logic implies that they do not exist or are not credible enough to present. Hence my comment that started this back and forth: let's not talk about ABX tests we don't have. Let's not even bring up the topic of ABX because all it does is shine light on paucity of such tests that involved any of us.

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #293 of 651 Old 04-03-2014, 08:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,768
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Liked: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Middleton View Post

Blind listening tests are merely the application of the Scientific Method to audio. To say that audio shouldn't be exposed to the bright light of science is unscientific, ie, stupid. Subjectivists argue against utilizing blinded listening tests because such tests have repeatedly shown that subjective reviews of components are complete BS. That's bad for business, of course, so they will never shut up. Think what would happen to companies like Transparent, Audioquest, et al, if rags like Stereophile applied science to reviews.
I am not seeing any subjectivists arguing about blind tests here. If you are referring to me, I asked for blind tests showing lack of efficacy regarding to the topic at hand, i.e. bi-amping, and no one has any to offer, despite the implication otherwise. It certainly is not scientific to assume that blind tests we have not run generate certain outcome.

Scientific method calls for being totally unbiased. That is a virtue that is impossible to find from proponents of ABX tests and such. Bias drips from every word they type smile.gif.

We must practice transparency if we have any hope of actually belonging to the scientific camp. To say that we should shine the bright line to the claims of the other camp while fighting tooth and nail from the same happening to us, takes away from the value of that statement.

Even the simple question of what the fixture looks like for a blind test applicable to this topic has gone unanswered. Unless you think "who is on first" as the answer smile.gif.

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #294 of 651 Old 04-03-2014, 08:19 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 403 Post(s)
Liked: 1047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Middleton View Post

Blind listening tests are merely the application of the Scientific Method to audio. To say that audio shouldn't be exposed to the bright light of science is unscientific, ie, stupid. Subjectivists argue against utilizing blinded listening tests because such tests have repeatedly shown that subjective reviews of components are complete BS.

These are all good points and highly relevant. If you read and believe subjective reviews you will be taught that all amplifiers and DACs for example, each have a characteristic sound that can be easily distinguished by both experienced audiophiles and venerated audio reviewers. While all DACs and amplifiers don't sound the same, very many do and the percentage that sound the same is generally increasing.

No subjective reviewer has been able to back up his statements about amplifiers, dacs, and cables all sounding different. It used to be possible to trick a few of them into public demonstrations of their alleged listening capabilities with the additional requirement that they would have to know what they are hearing without knowing what they are listening to (blind test) at every moment. They all failed, word got out, and they started what appears to me to be a disinformation campaign attacking blind tests.
Quote:
That's bad for business, of course, so they will never shut up. Think what would happen to companies like Transparent, Audioquest, et al, if rags like Stereophile applied science to reviews.

I think that what's really at stake is the ability of audiophiles and reviewers to influence opinons and the sales of audio gear based on naive audiophile suspension of disbelief. While understanding science can help audiophiles see through the haze of disinformation and contradictory information, simply invoking healthy skepticism can suffice. Notice that net, net, net there is not much agreement among subjective reviewers which equipment sounds the best. They all have their favorites.

It is true that in casual listening tests there is a strong tendency for the perception of audible differences to be quite apparent. However we now know that this is largely due to the fact that the human brain cannot accurately remember a detailed picture of a sonic scene for more than a few seconds. To hear two sounds as being the same at all levels of detail, they must be heard in quick succession. If there is too much delay between hearing the alternatives information will be lost in the brain, and the missing information will be perceived as sonic differences. Beyond that the human brain is biased to perceive differences where there are none. To a certain degree we hear what we want to hear. If we are given a convincing story that there is a difference we can easily be influenced to perceive a difference.
arnyk is online now  
post #295 of 651 Old 04-03-2014, 08:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 403 Post(s)
Liked: 1047
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Middleton View Post

Blind listening tests are merely the application of the Scientific Method to audio. To say that audio shouldn't be exposed to the bright light of science is unscientific, ie, stupid. Subjectivists argue against utilizing blinded listening tests because such tests have repeatedly shown that subjective reviews of components are complete BS. That's bad for business, of course, so they will never shut up. Think what would happen to companies like Transparent, Audioquest, et al, if rags like Stereophile applied science to reviews.

I am not seeing any subjectivists arguing about blind tests here.

True most subjectivists simply ignore blind tests and base their judgements on highly flawed casual evaluations. I can search the annals of AVS and find you Amir doing exactly the same thing, and you have never AFAIK actually recanted those statements.
Quote:
If you are referring to me, I asked for blind tests showing lack of efficacy regarding to the topic at hand, i.e. bi-amping, and no one has any to offer, despite the implication otherwise. It certainly is not scientific to assume that blind tests we have not run generate certain outcome.

The facts of the matter is that producing positive evidence about passive biamping (not biamping with no qualifications as erroneously stated above) needs to be provided by people who advocate it. I must recuse myself from DBTs involving passive biamping on those grounds,and so must many others. For the record I believe that active biamping can be efficacious. Thus the unqualified usage above is false and misleading.
Quote:
Scientific method calls for being totally unbiased.

This is false. The scientific method calls for identification and management of distracting influences. Many of these distracting influences cannot be totally removed, but good science requires that they be identified and managed wherever reasonably possible.

For example many scientific experiments are biased by gravity, yet gravity is pervasive on the earth's surface. It is possible in many cases to identify the biases due to gravity and account for them or manage them.

I freely admit that I have biases, particularly to my hearing but also my sight, other senses, and my thinking.. I can't make them go away by training or exercising my will. Yet I have to do listening tests from time to time. I therefore do as many listening tests as I can using procedures that account for and manage my biases as best I can. For example I do listening tests many times by encapsulating audible differences into highly accurate recordings and then comparing those recordings using a readily available ABX comparator - FOOBAR2000.
arnyk is online now  
post #296 of 651 Old 04-03-2014, 08:43 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,768
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Liked: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

No subjective reviewer has been able to back up his statements about amplifiers, dacs, and cables all sounding different. It used to be possible to trick a few of them into public demonstrations of their alleged listening capabilities with the additional requirement that they would have to know what they are hearing without knowing what they are listening to (blind test) at every moment. They all failed, word got out, and they started what appears to me to be a disinformation campaign attacking blind tests.
They all failed? Recall this example that I brought up a few years ago in our discussions:
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

And, comment on Michale Fremmer being able to tell 5/5 times in an AES workshop on blind testing of amps: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...dpost&p=629443

I am no fan of the man and certainly not the unprofessional way he posts but his comments do make you go "hmm"
.
"Let me answer Mr. Krueger's fantasies:

There was an AES meeting back in the early '90s and an ABX test of amplifiers. I was involved because I claimed that the idea that all amplifiers sound alike, or pretty much alike (that measure the same) is kind of foolish, since we really don't measure every aspect of performance and I told David Clark to produce an ABX test and I'd be happy to take it.

I took the ABX test as devised and produced by the group and I got five of five identifications correct. My editor, John Atkinson got 4 of 5 correct. The average of all test takers was inconclusive. According to Dr. Stanley Lipschitz, I was a "lucky coin" and my result was tossed.

So much for "science."

Now, here's the funny part: among the amps were some steely sounding solid state products including a Crown DC 300 and a very warm sounding VTL tube amp. It was quite easy to hear the difference between those. For one thing, they surely won't measure the same!

However, the average test taker, which included many recording engineers, could not, under blind ABX conditions tell the difference! Having been involved in many such tests, I brought more experience to it and so performed better as did John Atkinson.

I am happy to take such tests and usually do very well taking them...I can show you results of speaker identification blind tests I did at Harman's research center."
.

The above was challenged as being inaccurate at which point one of the test takes above, John Atkinson had this to say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post


The blind amplifier took place at the 1988 AES Convention in Los Angeles and in order to allow the maximum number of listeners to take part, each individual was restricted to 5 trials. As was mentioned, Michael Fremer got 5 identifications correct and I got 4 out of 5. Neither score reaches the 95% confidence limit and both Michael and I requested to take the test a second time, to see if we could repeat the score and thus increase the statistical probability that we were not just "lucky coins," but that wasn't possible.

A cynical person might suspect that the limit of 5 trials per person was decided upon to avoid a perfect 5/5 score being used as evidence for there being audible differences between the amplifiers chosen for the test. :-)

Regarding Arnyk's claim that this 1998 test was not a test but a "dem," [demo] the report on it in the Journal of the AES did describe it as a listening _test_.

And Amirm, thank you for the commentary in this thread.

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile
I think any fair assessment of the above would show a very different picture than you painted Arny.

We continue to show lack of transparency which is unfortunate as we talk about "scientific method"....

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #297 of 651 Old 04-03-2014, 09:59 PM
Senior Member
 
Jon Middleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Here's the deal. The null hypothesis of any blind listening test is that there is no audible difference in electronic components that measure similarly. The scientific method requires that a test must demonstrate that a difference exists, and furthermore, that the differences reach statistical significance. Reaching that threshold means that the perceived differences are not likely to result from mere chance. In this instance, the burden of proof falls on those who state passive biamping improves the sound produced by a rather diminutive speaker. Prove it.

John Atkinson has a vested interest in non-blinded subjective reviews. Said reviews are unadulterated bullcrap intended to sell magazines and gear. Many "Stereophile" readers believe in mystical qualities of copper as described by the writers. I approached this audiophile hobby with skepticism, but even subscribed to "Stereophile" for a time. They lost me when they waxed poetic over a freaking power cord and some small wooden discs. I don't believe in magic. Julian Hirsch never heard a piece of gear he didn't like. In retrospect, he was far more honest than those snake oil purveyors at "Stereophile".

I have a decent amount of money invested in gear, more than can be justified by the sound produced. But let's face it, the sound quality isn't the entire story. The gear is grown boys' toys, the high priced gear is beautifully made and beautiful to look at. Pride of ownership applies, many are about bragging rights. Nothing wrong with that, so long as the money spent was honestly earned and truly disposable. My wife and I listened to B&W 802D's yesterday. I came home and listened to my WATT Puppy 5.1s, and it seemed the WP's went lower. My wife thought they both sounded quite alike. I think they're both good quality speakers, but I'm quite sure similar sound quality could be had at a much lower price. When the sales guy asked me what I thought of the 802's, I said, "They look really cool!" We're waiting for a quote from him on how much it will cost to trade the WP's in on the 802's. The decision will be based on aesthetics only, as the 802's really fit much better in not only our house but the HT as well. It's silly, but it's our money and I really like the 800 series B&Ws. There are worse things to piss money away on than a nice pair of speakers. Having said that, I'd never biwire or biamp a speaker. You must draw the stupid line somewhere.

.
CruelInventions likes this.
Jon Middleton is offline  
post #298 of 651 Old 04-03-2014, 10:38 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,768
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Liked: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Middleton View Post

Here's the deal. The null hypothesis of any blind listening test is that there is no audible difference in electronic components that measure similarly. The scientific method requires that a test must demonstrate that a difference exists, and furthermore, that the differences reach statistical significance. Reaching that threshold means that the perceived differences are not likely to result from mere chance. In this instance, the burden of proof falls on those who state passive biamping improves the sound produced by a rather diminutive speaker. Prove it.

John Atkinson has a vested interest in non-blinded subjective reviews. Said reviews are unadulterated bullcrap intended to sell magazines and gear. Many "Stereophile" readers believe in mystical qualities of copper as described by the writers. I approached this audiophile hobby with skepticism, but even subscribed to "Stereophile" for a time. They lost me when they waxed poetic over a freaking power cord and some small wooden discs. I don't believe in magic. Julian Hirsch never heard a piece of gear he didn't like. In retrospect, he was far more honest than those snake oil purveyors at "Stereophile".

I have a decent amount of money invested in gear, more than can be justified by the sound produced. But let's face it, the sound quality isn't the entire story. The gear is grown boys' toys, the high priced gear is beautifully made and beautiful to look at. Pride of ownership applies, many are about bragging rights. Nothing wrong with that, so long as the money spent was honestly earned and truly disposable. My wife and I listened to B&W 802D's yesterday. I came home and listened to my WATT Puppy 5.1s, and it seemed the WP's went lower. My wife thought they both sounded quite alike. I think they're both good quality speakers, but I'm quite sure similar sound quality could be had at a much lower price. When the sales guy asked me what I thought of the 802's, I said, "They look really cool!" We're waiting for a quote from him on how much it will cost to trade the WP's in on the 802's. The decision will be based on aesthetics only, as the 802's really fit much better in not only our house but the HT as well. It's silly, but it's our money and I really like the 800 series B&Ws. There are worse things to piss money away on than a nice pair of speakers. Having said that, I'd never biwire or biamp a speaker. You must draw the stupid line somewhere.

.
Thank you for sharing your feelings with us. I have to say, I find it ironic that double blind tests and objective measurements show the B&W 802 to not be performant, yet you are in the market for them. I have sat through two rounds of such tests and my results agreed with the larger set of participants in that regard. Seems like you had not considered blind testing as valuable in your selection of speakers. Here is the data on the objective side:

8183d1267643581-b-w-nautilus-vs-sonus-faber-cremonas-b-w-802n.jpg

Take care smile.gif.

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #299 of 651 Old 04-04-2014, 04:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 1,885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 90 Post(s)
Liked: 86
802N <> 802D
Frank Derks is offline  
post #300 of 651 Old 04-04-2014, 04:51 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 403 Post(s)
Liked: 1047
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

No subjective reviewer has been able to back up his statements about amplifiers, dacs, and cables all sounding different. It used to be possible to trick a few of them into public demonstrations of their alleged listening capabilities with the additional requirement that they would have to know what they are hearing without knowing what they are listening to (blind test) at every moment. They all failed, word got out, and they started what appears to me to be a disinformation campaign attacking blind tests.
They all failed? Recall this example that I brought up a few years ago in our discussions:
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

And, comment on Michale Fremmer being able to tell 5/5 times in an AES workshop on blind testing of amps: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...dpost&p=629443

I am no fan of the man and certainly not the unprofessional way he posts but his comments do make you go "hmm"
.
"Let me answer Mr. Krueger's fantasies:

There was an AES meeting back in the early '90s and an ABX test of amplifiers. I was involved because I claimed that the idea that all amplifiers sound alike, or pretty much alike (that measure the same) is kind of foolish, since we really don't measure every aspect of performance and I told David Clark to produce an ABX test and I'd be happy to take it.

I took the ABX test as devised and produced by the group and I got five of five identifications correct. My editor, John Atkinson got 4 of 5 correct. The average of all test takers was inconclusive. According to Dr. Stanley Lipschitz, I was a "lucky coin" and my result was tossed.

So much for "science."

Now, here's the funny part: among the amps were some steely sounding solid state products including a Crown DC 300 and a very warm sounding VTL tube amp. It was quite easy to hear the difference between those. For one thing, they surely won't measure the same!

However, the average test taker, which included many recording engineers, could not, under blind ABX conditions tell the difference! Having been involved in many such tests, I brought more experience to it and so performed better as did John Atkinson.

I am happy to take such tests and usually do very well taking them...I can show you results of speaker identification blind tests I did at Harman's research center."
.

The above was challenged as being inaccurate at which point one of the test takes above, John Atkinson had this to say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post


The blind amplifier took place at the 1988 AES Convention in Los Angeles and in order to allow the maximum number of listeners to take part, each individual was restricted to 5 trials. As was mentioned, Michael Fremer got 5 identifications correct and I got 4 out of 5. Neither score reaches the 95% confidence limit and both Michael and I requested to take the test a second time, to see if we could repeat the score and thus increase the statistical probability that we were not just "lucky coins," but that wasn't possible.

A cynical person might suspect that the limit of 5 trials per person was decided upon to avoid a perfect 5/5 score being used as evidence for there being audible differences between the amplifiers chosen for the test. :-)

Regarding Arnyk's claim that this 1998 test was not a test but a "dem," [demo] the report on it in the Journal of the AES did describe it as a listening _test_.

And Amirm, thank you for the commentary in this thread.

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile
I think any fair assessment of the above would show a very different picture than you painted Arny.

Based on what evidence?

I claim that any reasonable reading of the theory and practice of statistics says that 5 trials is really too small of a sample to base any serious conclusions involving small differences on. That is surely what I was taught. That is what the scientific literature still says 40 years later.

If there is an event that as contrived involves too few trials to base any serious conclusions on, what do you call it? Fun? Games? A demonstration?

Just for grins here is an online article about reaching conclusions based on a small number of trials:

https://www.measuringusability.com/blog/small-n.php

There is a big caveat right near the beginning of the online article:

"Just as with statistics, just because you don't have a large sample size doesn't mean you cannot use statistics. Again, the key limitation is that you are limited to detecting large differences between designs or measures."

Since the AES listening evaluation involved small differences, my reference like any other reasonable reference would recommend against reaching far reaching conclusions based on small differences and small sample sizes. Reading the paper at the core online article, we find that the so-called small samples were composed of 12 trials. The samples were apparently kept small to reduce the risk of damage to the brains of the human subjects.

There's an amusing similarity. With the medical trials mentioned above the sample was kept small to reduce the risk of damage to the human subject's brains. At the AES ABX demonstation, the sample sizes were apparently kept small to reduce the risk of damage to golden ear reviewer;s egos. ;-)

So the bottom line is that no matter what advocates of one viewpoint or the other may say, the context o any ABX test is doing science and using statistics and in that context no way is 5 samples an adequate sample size for arriving at far reaching conclusions involving small differences. If it is not a valid test, then calling it a demonstration is at the worst very generous.

Sue me for being generous! ;-)
kbarnes701 likes this.
arnyk is online now  
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