or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy? - Page 67

post #1981 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

Deviations in frequency response isn't normally counted as distortion, so what other distortions do you mean they cancel?
So "clipping", for example, doesn't produce a deviation in frequency response?? I think you're just playing a semantic game, here. I don't think it is possible in principle to have a non-amplitude change in the waveform which doesn't change the frequency spectrum.
post #1982 of 3048
If you don't like 'high and mighty' DBT's for determining differences, what do you propose in its place, Heinrich?
post #1983 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD in NJ View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post

I don't know what that advertising graphic is supposed to show, but it certainly doesn't show one typical audio device countering distortion in another.

--Ethan

It's not an advertising graphic and if anyone uses it as such I'll sue. I just slapped it together myself. It was a joke.

I thought it was very funny, FWIW.

post #1984 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S View Post

Since when do I need to give a reason for posting? Just because I don't agree with your "high and mighty" DBT methods does not mean I don't find other topics interesting to discuss. There is more to audio than just DBTs, I wish some of you would acknowledge that.

So you think the ABX methodolog isn't suitable for determining if an audible difference exists between two signals?
post #1985 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai 
If you don't like 'high and mighty' DBT's for determining differences, what do you propose in its place, Heinrich?

I don't have a problem with a DBT per se -I even agree that they can work well. It's the interpretation of the data .. it's the implementation of the controls that can result in data either being fudged or simply incomplete and if the data is brought into question then the test results are brought into question. Independent verification is kind of important.

Null reports are not objective proofs; they don't necessarily mean that differences do not exist period -they just mean in those circumstances, no differences could be found on that day. On a different day, under different circumstances using different test protocols the sensitivity of the listener, etc, in a given environment, may produce different results.

Clearly not all DBTS are tested in the exact same way using the exact same test protocols and experimentalists are not infallible either and can make mistakes. Just as I would not necessarily agree with the results by default, I would expect some independent verification. I don't agree that *all* DBT results in audio are the be-all-end-all objective truths that some make them out to be. There is more to it ...
Edited by Heinrich S - 3/8/13 at 12:38pm
post #1986 of 3048
I have no problem with controls and. One that's used from time to tie might be something like a 2 ohm resistor where a person should reliably be able to pick it out. Also, training is never a bad idea. But this begs the question, just what training ought be done to verify some of the claims that have been made? Claims like something sounded darker, more organic, airy, well you get the picture. But if null results can only apply to ine set of circumstances, what is one to make of sighted comparisons that don't even try to do rigorous level matching? Now if DBT's are not the end all, than what can one propose in its stead? In your situation, have you come across something that clearly made a difference but you had expected it not to?
post #1987 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post

I don't think it is possible in principle to have a non-amplitude change in the waveform which doesn't change the frequency spectrum.

How about delaying everything above 1kHz by half a second?
post #1988 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 
So you think the ABX methodolog isn't suitable for determining if an audible difference exists between two signals?

No, this may surprise you but I support DBT... I think blind tests are the only way to settle the issue. However my concern is about the conditions of the tests as commonly done, and the interpretation of the results. Listener training is important but I almost never see any guidelines for this. I mean, what works with one person won't necessarily work with another. So you need to formulate a system that will provide training that maximises hearing sensitivity for each person. How does the listener control their attention? For example, how does the tester give instructions so the listener uses their attention in a consistent way? If everyone is different, what would be the best way of handling this for each person?

How are the musical selections handled? Are the same musical selections played repeatedly? What about fatigue setting in? How does one factor that into the test results? If after a while sensitivity to any difference is close to zero then the probability of experiencing a null result is going to be incredibly high because you can't reliably discern differences at this stage. How many samples should one do? 20 samples per listener to be statistically relevant? 50 samples? Over a wide range of conditions, in different environments or just one environment? How do you factor in the emotional state of the listener possibly affecting the results negatively? Do you rerun the test? Our perception changes from moment to moment, so one could easily argue that failing a DBT on one day could very well result in a pass the next day.

This is a heck of a time consuming process. Just going in and doing a DBT and getting a null result doesn't necessarily paint the full picture here. One could argue that a null result is a reflection of poor implementation of the controls, much to the dismay of the proponents, but I'm not interested in biased, prejudiced answers. Independent verification of the results would be a great idea and I never see any ... because I don't think any exist. Just taking the results at face value means little to me. As it should mean little to anyone else.
post #1989 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post

Another Shakti "innovation"...


Those things probably do something as they affect the rear wave from the speakers. Though I just stuck DIY absorption panels back there, way cheaper and proven to work. The AVS forum did help me improve my listening experience and why I am glad I found the forum, It prompted me into trying more room treatments and experimenting. I added absorption panels to the ceiling and back wall, before I only used bass traps and first side wall reflection treatments. Now with my current speakers I use room lenses at the first side wall reflection point plus the other treatments I mentioned. Works very well for my setup. The room lenses help control the dispersion I believe and improve Soundstaging and imagining, worked better for me than absorption at the side wall.

Anyway, the Science part comes in handy, but DBT and ABX testing results are the least interesting and important to me. I still like to try different gear every once in a great while, part of the fun to me.
post #1990 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I thought it was very funny, FWIW.

Thank you. As a married man with two boys it's nice to be appreciated by someone.
post #1991 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd68 View Post

Those things probably do something as they affect the rear wave from the speakers.

I'm sure they help to make the sound light and airy... Err, wait, I mean the wallet.
post #1992 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S 
There is more to audio than just DBTs, I wish some of you would acknowledge that.

There is more to audio than just DBTs.
post #1993 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

There is more to audio than just DBTs.

I don't really see where anyone has claimed otherwise. DBTs are a tool with a specific purpose, establishing if humans can reliably determine whether or not there are differences between two pieces of equipment.
post #1994 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD in NJ View Post

I'm sure they help to make the sound light and airy... Err, wait, I mean the wallet.

I could build a set, I have a jigsaw and sander! I can't decide which wood to use though. Maple naturally dried by the Amish which is said to add natural overtones and enhance the nuances of the recordings or ebony which is proven to sweeten the highs and mids plus enhance PRAT and natural occurring overtones. Maybe a mixture of the two wood types?
post #1995 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd68 View Post

I could build a set, I have a jigsaw and sander! I can't decide which wood to use though. Maple naturally dried by the Amish which is said to add natural overtones and inhance the nuances of the recordings or ebony which is proven to sweeten the highs and mids plus enhance PRAT and natural occurring overtones. Maybe a mixture of the two wood types?

It depends on your favorite style of music. Use lignum vitae for heavy metal.
post #1996 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD in NJ View Post

It depends on your favorite style of music. Use lignum vitae for heavy metal.

Too expensive I believe, some use that for turntable bearing thrust plates though. Good stuff, they say.
post #1997 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S View Post

Just because I don't agree with your "high and mighty" DBT methods does not mean I don't find other topics interesting to discuss.
Where did I post about my DBT methods? Can you show it?
Quote:
There is more to audio than just DBTs, I wish some of you would acknowledge that.
You could have just posted that instead of trolling on multiple pages.
post #1998 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S View Post

I don't have a problem with a DBT per se -I even agree that they can work well. It's the interpretation of the data .. it's the implementation of the controls that can result in data either being fudged or simply incomplete and if the data is brought into question then the test results are brought into question.
Can you cite real life examples of that?
Quote:
Independent verification is kind of important.
Kind of important? So it's not really important, according to you. Would it be important if the results disagree with you and not important if you think the results agree with you, like those quoted below?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S View Post

they just mean in those circumstances, no differences could be found on that day. On a different day, under different circumstances using different test protocols the sensitivity of the listener, etc, in a given environment, may produce different results.
If you want to find out if the difference can be found on a different day, you would have to use same test protocols in a same environment. Everything the same except for the day otherwise you can't isolate the cause if there is a noticeable difference.
Quote:
Clearly not all DBTS are tested in the exact same way using the exact same test protocols and experimentalists are not infallible either and can make mistakes.
Can you cite real life examples of that?
Quote:
Just as I would not necessarily agree with the results by default, I would expect some independent verification.
It's only "kind of important" so why care for it that much?
post #1999 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania 
It's only "kind of important" so why care for it that much?

Stop acting like a troll.
post #2000 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S View Post

No, this may surprise you but I support DBT... I think blind tests are the only way to settle the issue. However my concern is about the conditions of the tests as commonly done, and the interpretation of the results. Listener training is important but I almost never see any guidelines for this. I mean, what works with one person won't necessarily work with another. So you need to formulate a system that will provide training that maximises hearing sensitivity for each person. How does the listener control their attention? For example, how does the tester give instructions so the listener uses their attention in a consistent way? If everyone is different, what would be the best way of handling this for each person?

How are the musical selections handled? Are the same musical selections played repeatedly? What about fatigue setting in? How does one factor that into the test results? If after a while sensitivity to any difference is close to zero then the probability of experiencing a null result is going to be incredibly high because you can't reliably discern differences at this stage. How many samples should one do? 20 samples per listener to be statistically relevant? 50 samples? Over a wide range of conditions, in different environments or just one environment? How do you factor in the emotional state of the listener possibly affecting the results negatively? Do you rerun the test? Our perception changes from moment to moment, so one could easily argue that failing a DBT on one day could very well result in a pass the next day.

This is a heck of a time consuming process. Just going in and doing a DBT and getting a null result doesn't necessarily paint the full picture here. One could argue that a null result is a reflection of poor implementation of the controls, much to the dismay of the proponents, but I'm not interested in biased, prejudiced answers. Independent verification of the results would be a great idea and I never see any ... because I don't think any exist. Just taking the results at face value means little to me. As it should mean little to anyone else.

So basically you agree that ABX testing is able to determine if there is an audible difference between two audio signals but you believe that all tests so far weren't executed properly. If that's the case then there's really just one way to procede: run your own ABX tests.
post #2001 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

There is more to audio than just DBTs.

+1
post #2002 of 3048
post #2003 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

There is more to audio than just DBTs.

+1

Good point. DBTs were invented as some kind of a "Tie breaker", and not as a strait jacket that everybody has to wear all of the time..
post #2004 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk 
Good point. DBTs were invented as some kind of a "Tie breaker", and not as a strait jacket that everybody has to wear all of the time..

Then why do you behave like it is a strait jacket that everybody must be wearing all the time? I mean, you are the chief promoter and all ...
post #2005 of 3048
this is for arnyk, you stated, and I quote:
Quote:
I invented ABX and was among the organizers and participants in many of those tests that are in the archives.
IF this be the case- then you can easily describe what equipment was used- brand, model numbers and the source player(s) pre-amp and speakers that were used, as well at what power level this testing was performed at. As well, how long the time of listening sessions were. And as well what type of music was used.

Thank you
post #2006 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post

this is for arnyk, you stated, and I quote:
IF this be the case- then you can easily describe what equipment was used- brand, model numbers and the source player(s) pre-amp and speakers that were used, as well at what power level this testing was performed at. As well, how long the time of listening sessions were. And as well what type of music was used.

Thank you
I don't know anything about ABX testing, but Mr. Google brought me this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test, which might get you started (if you're actually interested).
post #2007 of 3048
this post is for Ethan Winer, Ethan, I would love to buy your book, as well, perhaps speak with you concerning my up comming HT set up (wall treatments). I would prefer to do this away from this particular thread however.

BTW, you have made mention to forms of distortions, I would subbmit that no part of humanly percieved audio is w/o distortion, after all, what is sound but nothing less then distortion that our human brains decomplie into usable ordered information.

Let me know.
post #2008 of 3048
Thank you Greg but I would like to hear from the inventor since he put that information out there. After all Arny keeps asking questions about peoples statments, yet provides no foundation of which to stand upon with concern to his own statments, other than he said she said type of responces.

Nor has Arny given any descriptional writing why the cheap amp x is as good as the better built amp y when driving a particular speaker system in a particular room at full power ratings.

After all most people do not purchase 200 wpc amps to listen to 10 watts of power- or do they? On that note, are there any really cheap 200 wpc amplifiers out there? As well I see no mention to how amplifiers interact with speakers- not just the particular one's used for his own purposes.
post #2009 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post

this is for arnyk, you stated, and I quote:
Quote:
I invented ABX and was among the organizers and participants in many of those tests that are in the archives.
IF this be the case- then you can easily describe what equipment was used- brand, model numbers and the source player(s) pre-amp and speakers that were used, as well at what power level this testing was performed at. As well, how long the time of listening sessions were. And as well what type of music was used.

I did the first ABX test in late April, 1977. No, it is not easy for me to describe what equipment was used- brand, model numbers and the source player(s) pre-amp and speakers that were used, as well at what power level this testing was performed at. As well, how long the time of listening sessions were. And as well what type of music was used.
post #2010 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post

T
Nor has Arny given any descriptional writing why the cheap amp x is as good as the better built amp y when driving a particular speaker system in a particular room at full power ratings.

Actually I have done exactly that - presented on AVS why the cheap amp x can not be distinguished by listening from allegedly e better built amps when driving any reasoanble speaker system in any reasonable room at typical power levels.
Quote:
After all most people do not purchase 200 wpc amps to listen to 10 watts of power- or do they?

Of course they do! Last time I measured the peak power being delivered to my speakers under normal listening conditions, it was a few watts.
Quote:
On that note, are there any really cheap 200 wpc amplifiers out there?

The bulk of really good inexpensive amplifiers are found in AVRs, and average out around 100 wpc.
Quote:
As well I see no mention to how amplifiers interact with speakers- not just the particular one's used for his own purposes.

In general the interactions between amplifiers an speakers are minimized by the linearity and low source impedance of your typical SS amplifier.
Edited by arnyk - 3/9/13 at 10:38am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy?