Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[jkeny]

I'm pretty sure a -80 dB null for an amplifier/cables/speaker combo (input to output) would indicate two systems were indistinguishable.

Yep, but if this is unobtainable in reality, then what's the point in it?
I'm certain that an "ideal" Source/DAC/pre-amplifer/amplifier/cables/speakers will give perfect reproduction. What can I do with this information that has a relevance to the real world?

 

[Gregadd]

You can't prove that digital sounds "steely," and I can easily prove it does not using science and measurements. Is this how you argue in a courtroom?

--Ethan

The rules of evidence allow for lay impressions. Such as the music was so loud I called the police. The food was so salty I needed a glass of water. It was so cold outside I neeed an overcoat.

Or this lay impression:

I've already explained many times here and elsewhere that some people enjoy the degraded sound of vinyl and tape. This is not new info. The extra "crunch" can be perceived as clearer.
Ethan

All would be accepted as proof of the matter asserted therin

As for the quality of digital, I think we have been down that road before. Feel free to re-travel it. Alone of course.

Edit: Wouldn't that be proving the negative?

Greg

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The rules of evidence allow for lay impressions. Such as the music was so loud I called the police. The food was so salty I needed a glass of water. It was so cold outside I neeed an overcoat.

Yes, counselor, and for every audiophile witness you can call who would say that digital sounds steely, or cold or clinical or is fatiguing, I could find 1,000 music lovers who wouldn't have any idea what on earth they were talking about. Would you call the audiophiles as "expert witnesses?" Few of them qualify and every recording engineer in the country working with digital every day, making it sound steely if they like and as warm as a puppy under a blanket if they'd rather, would. They know the end of "steely" is at their fingertips and could demonstrate that fact to your jury.

If these "lay impressions" are your best evidence, you've lost the case before you made your opening remarks. Or were you counting on a jury of audiophiles?

Tim

 

[Ethan Winer]

An example that springs to mind would be one of the old DBX type noise reduction devices.

Sure, but that's very different from amplifiers as I've been discussing!

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

He [Ethan] was asked to put a value on this closeness to ideal & give some real world examples of such SS amplifers.

I haven't tried to null two power amps. But didn't Tom post many pages back that Bob Carver got nulls as deep as 70 dB? Found it:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ive-Me-a-Break&p=138667&viewfull=1#post138667

Maybe we can confirm this? Or maybe we should just test it ourselves. Anyone want to be a witness? My friend and neighbor Mark Weiss has a very well-equipped electronics lab, and I'll gladly spring for the ten-turn pot.

None the less John, until you can prove that you can hear even the -50 dB difference in my acoustic test files, you're still just blowing smoke and changing the subject. It's obvious you'll never email me your choices because deep down you know I'm right and you can't identify which file is which.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

he can't produce a null measurment of 80dB for this steup & this was his claim - that measurments can prove two amplifiers are identical sounding.

For the 17th time, 80 dB is the number I came up with that's optimized for both Fletcher-Munson and the masking effect, using only test tones. In practice, artifacts and other differences under music are usually inaudible even at much higher levels. My AES Audio Myths video references hi-res Wave files you can download containing artifacts at various levels below the music. That section starts at 32 minutes in. Please tell us at what level the added artifact noise is no longer audible to you.

--Ethan

 

[jkeny]

I haven't tried to null two power amps. But didn't Tom post many pages back that Bob Carver got nulls as deep as 70 dB? Found it:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ive-Me-a-Break&p=138667&viewfull=1#post138667

I'm afraid that again your evidence is far less objective than what you state it is - the quote from Tom " I should check but thought the carver challenge nulled at -70db across a broad midband of frequencies IIRC." So he is unsure of this & yet you state it as fact - have you checked this value? Is it just across the midband that this null figure was obtained?

Maybe we can confirm this?

Maybe you should before stating that is Carver's result

Or maybe we should just test it ourselves. Anyone want to be a witness? My friend and neighbor Mark Weiss has a very well-equipped electronics lab, and I'll gladly spring for the ten-turn pot.

Go for it - I would be delighted if a verifiable, objective test could be found which can be used to better evaluate audibility. PS but why are you pre-empting such a test with definitive statements about what your null testing "proves"?

None the less John, until you can prove that you can hear even the -50 dB difference in my acoustic test files, you're still just blowing smoke and changing the subject. It's obvious you'll never email me your choices because deep down you know I'm right and you can't identify which file is which.

--Ethan

Ethan, if you read what I & others posted you would realise that one piece of music played back & recorded on your specific system cannot be generalised into any statement that applies to all systems (i.e anything other than your system)! Why you don't realise this & continue to make it into some kind of worthwhile challenge is beyond me. It proves nor diproves anything!

 

[NorthStar]

---Unravelling the audio truth from the revelators. :b

 

[Gregadd]

Yes, counselor, and for every audiophile witness you can call who would say that digital sounds steely, or cold or clinical or is fatiguing, I could find 1,000 music lovers who wouldn't have any idea what on earth they were talking about.How do you know that? Would you call the audiophiles as "expert witnesses?" Few of them qualify and every recording engineer in the country working with digital every day, making it sound steely if they like and as warm as a puppy under a blanket if they'd rather, would. They know the end of "steely" is at their fingertips and could demonstrate that fact to your jury.

If these "lay impressions" are your best evidence, you've lost the case before you made your opening remarks. Or were you counting on a jury of audiophiles?

Tim

First of all the overwhelming number of trials are decided on lay testimony. Expert testimony is only allowed when the ordinary citizen can't understand the subject matter. Anybody can judge the sound quality of a recording. Indeed that is the whole point. To provide the consumer with a pleasurable recording. As I have said repeatedly the listener is the final arbiter.

I cannot speculate what recording engineers can or cannot do. I can only evaluate what they have done.

I'm a criminal defense lawyer. I can only lose in the final verdict. Not in opening statement.

P.S. You guys are extremely intelligent. The law requires extensive training and expereince. Perhaps you should stick to audio.

Greg

 

[rbbert]

Yep, but if this is unobtainable in reality, then what's the point in it?
I'm certain that an "ideal" Source/DAC/pre-amplifer/amplifier/cables/speakers will give perfect reproduction. What can I do with this information that has a relevance to the real world?

humorous interlude, sorry, I thought the emoticons gave it away.

you might be able to set up a test in Harmon's listening room, but I'd be surprised if you could manage even -15 to -20 dB nulls between identical equipment.

 

[jkeny]

For the 17th time, 80 dB is the number I came up with that's optimized for both Fletcher-Munson and the masking effect, using only test tones. In practice, artifacts and other differences under music are usually inaudible even at much higher levels. My AES Audio Myths video references hi-res Wave files you can download containing artifacts at various levels below the music. That section starts at 32 minutes in. Please tell us at what level the added artifact noise is no longer audible to you.

--Ethan

I'm afraid you are using your usual tactic of ignoring the fact that your claim is shown to have no substance when challenged & instead revert to another of these hearing challenges which have no generalised relevance to audibility for all systems.

 

[Raffles]

Sure, but that's very different from amplifiers as I've been discussing!

Well you didn't say amplifiers, merely "devices". And who's to say that an amplifier doesn't in some tiny way resemble a DBX compressor when responding to a huge transient into an awkward load? Hence the idea of null testing rather than the usual steady signal tests.

 

[DonH50]

Yes, Bob achieved a 70 dB null. http://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge

 

[NorthStar]

--------- :b

 

[NorthStar]

About Cocaine perhaps. Too bad for his Morphine addicted buddy, he was wrong.

I'm on codeine right now; and morphine is next. ...By transfusion. ...Tonight or tomorrow.
...Heavily sedated, few problems, physical. I have hope.

 

[NorthStar]

---Tom, I enjoyed reading your last three posts from the previous page.

 

[opus111]

I am with Ethan, there is a limit to what you can hear, as far as level, in db down, in music.

I don't understand this fascination with trying to hear progressively more attenuated levels of interference. Its not real-world at all - most of us if we've got audible interference in our systems will assume something's wrong and take steps to fix it up.

And even more to the point, nobodys ears are capable of measuring down as low as test equipment can. Try his test, tell us all how many db down before you could no longer hear the interference signal. Then we can talk objectively.

Objectively yes, but also totally irrelevantly because its nothing like a real world test. So quite honestly, what's the point?

 

[opus111]

A very interesting technical paper dealing with null testing of an amp design - http://www-f9.ijs.si/~margan/Articles/Class_B_Dist.pdf

 

[jkeny]

Yeah, But is that "uncertainty" the add copy you use to describe your products?

I'll ignore this

I am with Ethan, there is a limit to what you can hear, as far as level, in db down, in music. And even more to the point, nobodys ears are capable of measuring down as low as test equipment can. Try his test, tell us all how many db down before you could no longer hear the interference signal. Then we can talk objectively. But if you hear it and I dont, there is no room for discussion, and you have better ears than me and all that huurah stuff.

So you are opting for inconclusive, incomplete & irrelevant tests so that you can have a pretence of certainty?
As Opus asked him in answer to another throwaway claim/post Ethan made regarding THD & IM "Does this claim apply for any two possible devices, or only devices you've encountered personally?"

 

[microstrip]

Yes, Bob achieved a 70 dB null. http://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge

Don,

The Carver challenge is part of audio history, but technically it is a undocumented experience, where we must guess most of the facts, and naturally people feel free to interpret it and make their own conclusions. Mine is that Bob Carver is a genius of electronics, and managed to make the two amplifiers sound the same in the conditions the challenge was carried. Whether they sounded similar because of the -70db null effect or anything else that Bod did to the amplifier was never established.

Again IMHO the audio crowds need simple facts and strong evidences to feed their folklore - the Carver challenge seemed adequate for this purpose, specially since it had the benediction of the TAS authorities, no technical documentation, just vague statements, and most of it, an epic formulation.