Truth and Tonality: can they co-exist?

JackD201 · Feb 1, 2011

My amp's FR

My amp's Power Output vs Input V

This qualifies as flat to me with less than .2dB variation and practically ruler flat in the midband. They also qualify in my book for being true to the source signal.

They are very detailed but also harmonically rich. IME the really good components are the ones that can be both simultaneously not one or the other.

Phelonious Ponk · Feb 1, 2011

Gregadd said:
Which is it Tim? Common Sense or Science? It has been acknowledged over and over by those that advocate proper DB it is just to problematic and time consuming. Even Sean Olive Does a modified version of a true DB. For me you have to be familiar with A&B before you can choose. I think that's why so many people are unable to distinguish between A&B. They are not familiar with either. We all went to school. That's why we study. The more we expose ourselves to something the better we are table to remember?. So it is difficult to come into a room listen to equipment for the first time in with a 15 second music clip or tone burst ;asses thier sound quality; put it into memory; and pick it out in a rapid test.

It's both, Greg. It is sense and science so universally accepted by that it is rarely questioned outside of this hobby. Professionals might think about how rapidly they switch between samples being tested under controlled AB/X conditions, but the kind of slow, sighted listening testing audiophiles advocate when AB/X doesn't support their beliefs, like the wine example above, wouldn't get a moment's serious consideration from serious people with their reputations and substantial amounts of their client's money on the line. And I think most educated audiophiles know this is true; they've just decided that the rules don't apply to their hobby, because the results don't support what they believe.

Tim

mep · Feb 1, 2011

Jack-I see no disconnect between an amp having ruler flat frequency response, being true to the source signal, and being detailed and harmonically rich. Assuming the music being played back had harmonically rich content, it should sound that way when it comes out of your amp. I certainly don't want an amp that stirps away harmonics that were there at the input.

Gregadd · Feb 1, 2011

Jack is your system uncolored? Does it distort? Did you chose that distortion? Did you settle based on the existing technology and your budget? Or did you intentionally choose a flavor? That's what offends me. All this holier than thou nonsense about how neutral my system is and you are just indulging your preference. Clearly you have a standard and that standard is fidelity to real music. You are a lot closer than most of us will ever be.

garylkoh · Feb 1, 2011

I'm not talking about fixing the recording - and I didn't say it's the right thing to do, just another point of discussion. I know (and disagree with) a lot of audiophiles who use cables and interconnects as "tone controls". I don't think that's right, but I have experienced a system which sounded pleasant and that played most of the type of music that the owner listens to most well sound completely "broken" when "better" cables were inserted.

I recognize that not all systems are at the level of Steve's or MikeL's or JackD's. It is when we start talking about absolutes that we get into arguments with measurements, DBT, "just listen" etc. For someone with a system that he can't afford to upgrade but has an older CD player that is a little hard due to elevated distortion above 12kHz because of a badly-implemented filter, an interconnect, amplifier or loudspeaker that veils the high frequencies may be just what the doctor ordered. In the context of that particular music lover, the truth does exist - the truism being that he enjoys his music.

microstrip · Feb 1, 2011

Phelonious Ponk said:
Not sure what you mean by "classing equipment." I'm talking about using it to determine if differences can be perceived.

Read Sean Olive's blog. Read Floyd Toole. Read the research papers of any large company doing serious research, audio or otherwise, in which AB/X testing is used to determine the perceptible difference between two or more things. It is not even remotely controversial, and no one out there who is serious is trying to prove it. Outside of "high-end" audio, switching fairly rapidly between the things being tested is the standard. If you want to know if a wine lover can taste the difference between Cabernet #1 and Cabernet #2, you don't give him a couple of weeks to drink, stare at the labels, discuss it with his friends and then get back to you. You and Greg asking me to verify common sense. If I Google it, what I'll find is a bunch of audiophiles trying to disprove it and maybe a couple of professionals just confirming that it's the thing you do, because to them, it is obvious.

And if that's not good enough for you, I asked for data first. Show me the slow, casual, sighted listening test conducted by independent research professionals. Just one.

Tim

You should read what we were talking about . Amir question was :
> Here is the order of how you can measure performance with highest reliability to lowest:

You are talking about:
> I'm talking about using it to determine if differences can be perceived.

Very different things.

I was referring my opinion about how I (myself, me alone) like do my "quality" tests. See my text you quoted:
>Short blind tests, carried under pressure with a narrow selection of music, have limited value for an adequate appreciation of high-end systems (as you always refer to excellent gear in your posts, I consider they are the target of your post).

BTW, you asked first but I had already answered - I am just quoting my poor, unreliable, miserable opinion, expecting someone is interested in reading it

Gregadd · Feb 1, 2011

See http://www.avguide.com/forums/the-difference-between-medical-dbts-and-audio-dbts

Phelonious Ponk · Feb 1, 2011

Gregadd said:
See http://www.avguide.com/forums/the-difference-between-medical-dbts-and-audio-dbts

Do I have to read that whole thread, Greg, or will you just go ahead and tell me there is no study there, just a bunch of audiophiles talking about why the rules don't apply to audio?

Tim

microstrip · Feb 1, 2011

garylkoh said:
Mark - perhaps.... but I am reminded of one of the philosophies of Chinese traditional medicine - yi tu kong tu - or using a poison to counteract another poison. Perhaps, just perhaps, if you have mostly the truth (absolute truth being unattainable in a hifi system at the current state of the art) then a little poison may counteract some of the falsehood and edge you closer to the truth? Is there any merit in this though? Just for the sake of discussion......

Gary,
I wrote it some months ago in another thread. Happy you like poisons!

Subtractive and Additive?

Most of the best hifi components are not completely neutral in the sense they do not change the signal - if they were neutral they would sound all the same, and I have never had two different preamplifiers that sound the same. Some of them manipulate the signal in a way it helps us recreate our image of music.

Do you thing that great designers add something to the signal that enhances the music or they simply remove nasty information that masks our perception of some information existing in the recorded music?

mep · Feb 1, 2011

Actually Tim, the article was written by an MD who has extensive experience in performing double blind studies in medicine and he is relating that info to how he sees audio blind tests being conducted.

RUR · Feb 1, 2011

Gregadd said:
...For me you have to be familiar with A&B before you can choose. I think that's why so many people are unable to distinguish between A&B. They are not familiar with either. We all went to school. That's why we study. The more we expose ourselves to something the better we are table to remember?. So it is difficult to come into a room listen to equipment for the first time in with a 15 second music clip or tone burst ;asses thier sound quality; put it into memory; and pick it out in a rapid test.

There's no requirement that the test sample be new and unfamiliar to the subject, Gregg. ITU-R BS.1116-1, which is often cited as a basis for audio DBT's, stipulates that test samples be selected which best show the differences between the pieces of gear under test (I'm paraphrasing). When I did my DAC DBT's, I spent considerable time listening to each DAC and selected musical passages which best showed the differences I thought I heard (sighted). I then conducted the DBT using those passages. In some cases, the differences I thought I heard sighted were not borne out in the DBT. In others, it was.

mep · Feb 1, 2011

RUR-Same outcome as flipping a coin?

RUR · Feb 1, 2011

mep said:
RUR-Same outcome as flipping a coin?

For the pairs I could not distinguish DBT, yes. For those pairs I could distinguish, worst score was 13/15.

JackD201 · Feb 1, 2011

Exactly Mark but some folks don't see things the way we do. Some folks think that this harmonic richness or "warmth" is caused by a hump here or conversely a dip there in the electronics and what is heard is measurable on the test bench.

Going from source components to amplification to loudspeakers that measures flat does not make flat output automatic. I'm not downplaying the need for fidelity to the signal. All I'm saying is that there is a lot more to High Fidelity than electrons.

Sure I like my amp's pretty graphs. There's a boatload more. Looking at them however, while giving me peace of mind, still doesn't tell me how they will sound.

Phelonious Ponk · Feb 1, 2011

mep said:
Actually Tim, the article was written by an MD who has extensive experience in performing double blind studies in medicine and he is relating that info to how he sees audio blind tests being conducted.

And he's right if the point he's trying to make is that most of the audio DBTs we read about on the internet are not controlled, do not adhere to sound methodologies and are not carried far enough to be statistically significant. But if what he's trying to say is that the rules of sound AB/X testing do not apply to audio and that more objective results are obtained by audiophiles listening over the course of weeks while looking lovingly upon that in which they have invested much hard-earned money, he's just another audiophile making up reasons not to test his preconceptions. This one just happens to be an MD.

This has very quickly done its full circle to where it was destined to end before it began. Amir suggested an order of testing reliability with measurement on the top, AB/X in the middle and sighted listening on the bottom. The same old objections were raised. The same old defenses were countered. No minds were changed. Back to truth and tonality?

Tim

mep · Feb 1, 2011

JackD201;36449 Sure I like my amp's pretty graphs. There's a boatload more. Looking at them however said:
+1

amirm · Feb 1, 2011

garylkoh said:
Solid-state: Pass Aleph 3
Tube: BAT VK-55SE

Not sure what the question was that led to your answer Gary

but here is some measurements:

Pass Aleph 3:
Fig.1 shows the Aleph 3's frequency response. It is nearly ideal—even with our simulated real load, the deviation from flat is inconsequential.

And BAT:

Fig.1 Balanced Audio Technology VK-55SE, High output tap, frequency response at 2.83V into: simulated loudspeaker load (gray), 8 ohms (left channel blue, right red), 4 ohms (left cyan, right magenta), 2 ohms (green). (1dB/vertical div.)

So what do we learn here?

Someone should be fired at stereophile magazine

. Why? Why on earth would they use different scales to show the same graph? One goes to 50 KHz, another to 200 KHz. The first graph only has the simulated load but the second has two other. Why not have the same measurements for both so that we can properly compare?

So let's take the simulated load as that is the common thread. The BAT surely has wild variations in the response.

Now let's read some of the subjective words from the review:

"....the VK-55SE was a tad more tonally rich delivering the chorus than the Atlas or Nu-Vista, and the Atlas had a bit more sparkle than the Nu-Vista and the '55SE. ..."

"...the sound was vivid, relaxed, and liquid. Delmoni's 1780 J.B. Guadagnini violin has an unusually big sound, and the '55SE reproduced that bigitude, and the Guadagnini's timbral impact, with clarity—it didn't sound too big or too bright, but just right...."

Let me ask you this: which one of these two evaluations is more reliable? If I measured the unit again, would it produce wildly different results?

What if I had someone else review the BAT? Would they use the same words or even similar ones? What if I took the markings off the BAT and put in the box with the name Mark Levinson on it making it look like a solid state amp? Would the above words change in the review then? What if it said Carver or Sony on it? What if I said it cost $500 for the amp or $50,000? Would the words change?

Above all, how are the above words any different than any other high-end amp review? And what do the words really mean anyway? Sparkle means what? More highs? What does "ease" mean?

So again, without judging the execution, how would you rate the reliability of each evaluation type?

Phelonious Ponk · Feb 1, 2011

mep said:
Going back and re-reading the original post that started this thread, I can see it was doomed to fail from the get-go. The original post stated that we needed to add back some "desirable" distortions which of course are the very words that will drive many to distraction including me. Components shouldn't be in the business of adding distortions to our music in order to give us "tone." Our goal should be sound input = sound output if our goal is fidelity to the source. For some people, fidelity to the source is really not their goal and they want to add their own seasonings and spice to the recipe to make it sound the way they want it to. And I submit that if you want to add "desirable" distortions to the source signal, you are not in the high fidelity camp. There is no shortage of jigger-pookey devices both old and new that you can buy and insert into your playback chain to give you all sorts of effects to your music. If this sort of tea gives you pleasure, by all means drink it. I just don't see any reason to keep discussing a thread that was started on the premise of "truth and tonality, can they coexist?" Of course they can coexist in the sense that you can start off with truth (high fidelity) and mix in some tonality (distortion), but you will no longer have the truth.

I somehow missed this one. +10.

Tim

Phelonious Ponk · Feb 1, 2011

Amir is my hero.

Tim

JackD201 · Feb 1, 2011

Reg,

Yes it distorts and it is colored. Less than many granted, but the answer is still yes. Every component has a bit of a signature. I'd be lying if I said they didn't. Yes too that my reference is what I've experienced live BUT not limited to acoustic music only.

I'm not offended by the preference thing though. I'll take what floats my boat every single time. What sounds realistic to me may not be realistic to somebody else. We've all got mental cues that trigger our ability to sustain extended periods of suspension of disbelief. Some are common to all of us like dynamics and formants but tonality can vary very differently depending on both the level of exposure and its nature. All of us can identify most common instruments. Far fewer of us can tell a Steinway from a Bosendorfer or an Amati from a Strad. (Count me in as one that can't) Now THAT is a blind test! Hehehehe.

I think of it like differences of perspective. All my musician friends and relatives like a lot of bite. No surprise there I think. Casual listeners prefer smoothening like that which some distance puts between them and the performers. Thus my thinking that there are different versions of the truth or that all truths are personal.

So Frank says, the actual event on the recording is what he refers to. Well.......okay but we all know the majority of what we listen to never happened the way we are made to think they did and we'll never really know either. Like the guy telling the funny story that nobody laughed at is likely to say, "you just had to be there". Even if I was, was I a band member, the engineer or the roadie running the cables? These three guys were there and even if they had identical hearing, they sure as heck have three perfectly valid versions of the truth as defined by the OP.

Gosh this gave me a headache again. Why oh why am I addicted to this forum????????!!!!!!!!!

Truth and Tonality: can they co-exist?

WBF Founding Member

New Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

WBF Founding Member

WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)

VIP/Donor

WBF Founding Member

New Member

VIP/Donor

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

WBF Founding Member

WBF Founding Member

New Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Banned

New Member

New Member

WBF Founding Member

Similar threads