Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break
- Thread starter Jeff Fritz
- Start date
His video said he practiced extensivley prior to the meeting.
Yes he does. His new amps have a 1.6 ohm output impedeance no less!
The PhaseLlinear was a "hit"
I'm saving that . too
They would not be identical though
They were not wrong about things sounding different. He changed them to make them sound similar
I think he challenged them
Jkeny,
As far as I see Mark is referring to an effect that is reported in any decent amplifier review with measurements - the effect of the damping factor in response when used with a real load. It is quite plausible - he is comparing an amplifier with a damping factor of over 500 with an amplifier that has non documented damping factor used in bridged mode - I have seen people reporting that the KAV series are low feedback designs having a damping around 30 but could never see it in original documents. Bridging would reduce it to 15. This difference in frequency response could be expected from normal measurements - these are not the effects we were debating.
Although I listen to music in an armchair and I am not an expert, I also had contact with several designers and representatives, sometimes at copious meals. And I have confirmed with some of them one thing that experts in electronic analog design have told me a few years ago - using current state of the art electronic simulators you can "measure" things in the simulation that you are not able to measure in real life, but are of great importance in the design and in the final result. Do you agree?
Sorry, but I'm not interested in the minutia of what was being debated - to me it was a waste of internet bandwidth as it was not informed by real-world information.
I'm of the opinion that simulations are also based on models of components that are theoretically perfect & in most cases are an approximation of the real world component. As a result, simulations will often provide results that stray far from reality. It's possible that some designers have developed component models that are more representative of real world components that they are interested in & can use simulations to better model how a finished device will behave in the real world. But by & large simulations are used as proof of concept models or checking changes that "in theory" could work better. The art of design is in dealing with the "stuff" that isn't mentioned on component datasheets!
So we managed to come full circle after all. By the luck of the gods we got away from that logical corner we had painted ourselves into and are back on the audiophile track. And so are left at the same sticking point as always, claims of these night and day readily discernable differences without ever having managed to demonstrate them. Where is the real world information in that john?
Claims that a single chip from the same batch that can sound as different as two entirely different amplifiers (itself never actually demonstrated, 'we don't need no stinkin dbt' remember) which led to that horrible sinking feeling when the endpoint of that stance was exposed, quick we had better paper over THOSE cracks and voila, it was so. It turns out we CAN measure those differences between the amps after all!! They DON'T measure exactly the same so now can sound completely different.
But let's not look at the new elephant in the room, cause we are back on track. What we measure does not correlate with what we hear. Well, it ain't a new elephant is it, look at all those wrinkles and bags under it's eyes, it must be at least a hundred years old. Hmm, whoda thunk an elephant lived that long eh?
So what is it guys? Measurements can and do show the needed differences that help explain audible differences, or we can hear what measurements do not show. Cmon, it has gotta be one or the other, I'm getting dizzy from all the switching.
It got dropped like a hot potato, not one had the courage to even address the question if only on a theoretical level, which one of you could distinguish your left and right speaker situated exactly in front of you playing a mono signal, and you did not know which it was? They WILL measure differently, therefore if units that measure exactly the same can sound different then surely things that DO measure differently cannot sound exactly the same.
Or, if you prefer (saying that in this example we could not distinguish them), how different do these measurements need to be before we can tell them apart?
Nice post Frantz, a lot of truth in there that if pondered would at least be an interesting personal experience. I was thinking about that myself just yesterday, our prejudices. I was (naturally after finding out my blunder) looking at that mechanism from the angle of 'assumptions', but in this case 'assumptions' and 'prejudice' are not that far removed. At any point in time we are the cumulation of these prejudices (which really are nothing more than unexamined assumptions) and we are all subject to them. It is refreshing to see that another person has a look too at his own assumptions/prejudices. At the end of the day the utility and importance of doing that is because these things stuff your own life, no-one else's.
It is rare to find someone who even acknowledges the existance let alone ponder it!
Good post.
Terrj, not interested in debating this silly black & white polarised version of the world you are putting up as a strawman argument.
Yes, audiophiles (on both sides) are full of hyperbole & over-statement, much like any other fanatical hobbyists. Much like what you are engaging in now! Time you got over that one.
It's simple, really, you can't correlate measurements with what is heard yet you make claims that everything that is heard can be measured. So you can't back up your claim. When you have worked out the correlations, I'm willing to debate it further but I imagine this will take a long time so don't count on me being around.
On the other side of the coin a portion of people claim that they can hear differences between devices/systems that using the normally accepted measurements seem to be identical within the acceptable limits of the measurement equipment. But these claims haven't been verified with tests sufficiently rigorous for peer reviewed scientific acceptance.
A Mexican stand-off, it would seem! Until one of these two claims can be proven it's a senseless waste of time & energy.
Yes, audiophiles (on both sides) are full of hyperbole & over-statement, much like any other fanatical hobbyists. Much like what you are engaging in now! Time you got over that one.
It's simple, really, you can't correlate measurements with what is heard yet you make claims that everything that is heard can be measured. So you can't back up your claim. When you have worked out the correlations, I'm willing to debate it further but I imagine this will take a long time so don't count on me being around.
On the other side of the coin a portion of people claim that they can hear differences between devices/systems that using the normally accepted measurements seem to be identical within the acceptable limits of the measurement equipment. But these claims haven't been verified with tests sufficiently rigorous for peer reviewed scientific acceptance.
A Mexican stand-off, it would seem! Until one of these two claims can be proven it's a senseless waste of time & energy.
I don't mind in the slightest mep (mark isn't it?) Is there a reason you'd like to know more? A simple 'just curious' won't do, I'll have to see an honest answer (this guys system must be full of crap components like dvd players, old seventies amps (phase linear 700's qualify??) blister pack Ic's and low voltage lighting cable used on the speakers-all true BTW and so would not be insulted
). I only 'stipulate' an hoinest asnwer seein as how we have just recently discussed things like assumptions and prejudices..it's fresh in me mind and so am now curious if we can be honest with each other!!jerkn, really?
You mean I was imagining you have been most vociferous in this thread and any other thread which attempts to show we hear things we cannot measure?? These are the things you have no wish to debate?
Well blow me down.
Strawman?, well it's damned cold here lately so I wish I had me a bunch of those pesky strawmen set up by the original article, I'd be as warm as toast all winter. Now, if you have been unable to follow or understand the twist recently, it would be my pleasure to explain it slowly to you.
'ere we go. Manufacturing tolerances are so sloppy and quality control procedures are so poorly carried out that we can get completely different sounds from dac chips of the same batch. This, it seems, in not in dispute. (cept a few of *us* are disputing it)
These easily heard audible differences are simply NOT picked up by the current technological measurements, which is assumed are within tolerances and gain the 'acceptable' mark. That led to the situation where measurements that ARE observably different should logically lead to even more easily heard differences.
That position is what you are now attempting to evade by labeling it a strawman. I'll just go and have a quick peek to see if the mere act of you labeling it something changed it in any way....
.....hi, back. Nope, sorry, it did not change at all. Oh well.
Taking that logical position further, it led to me asking if those that easily hear differences between gear that cannot be measured can hear the difference between their left or right speaker (and make no mistake, it IS entirely feasible depending on the quality of the speakers).
Can you? (Here's an interesting one, what if you did this experiment and DID hear differences between your left and right speakers...what would you (anyone, not just john) do? Shrug and put them back? Put them back and have it slowly start to gnaw at you? At least measure them and see what is up? I'm interested in how people would react)
Can you also hear the differences between left and right channel of your amp? The dac you sell? How close are the measurements between those two channels?
Thankyou, we have been asking this for quite a few pages now, you are the first (to date the only) to admit that. Yep, you are right too, it is on both sides.
Correct, I can't prove it. It is a working hypothesis, a starting point for examination.
YOU however, can prove it wrong. Willing to give it a go?
Seems to be yes, unless we can get someone to step up to the plate.
The special hearing of the golden-eared audiophile, beyond normal citizens, beyond what can be measured, beyond what is generally believed to exist, has been tested. The carver challenge, the stereophile "Do All Amps Sound The Same" tests, Meyer and Moran, the CRC and Harman speaker studies -- these and a few others have all challenged the basic beliefs that Audiophiles hear what the public doesn't, what science cannot even measure. Peer review? Not a lot. I'm afraid there's not enough money in it to draw much interest. And of course Audiophiles have found fault with every one of those tests. Maybe rightfully so. But in the rare event that a halfway decent methodology is employed in numbers large enough for some statistical legitimacy -- the Harman and Canadian speaker studies that clearly indicate a direct correlation between measurement and sound, Meyer and Moran, which demonstrated the inaudibility of one of the things audiophiles had claimed was glaring, obvious, unlistenable -- it never seems to inspire reconsideration, further inquiry, probing discussion, or even deep thought. But the rush to discredit, the howls of protest are immediate and relentless. I'm sure all of the above are flawed (harman and M & M are pretty buttoned up, actually). I'm also sure they all have some value) some lessons to teach. The Audiophile community has utterly failed to learn them. Maybe there is something about the opening of one's ears that closes the mind.
Tim
Tim
Tim,
Ii seems you have taken all your very few usual arguments, joined them in a bowl, got your kitchen mixer, and mixed, folded, beat and whipped it all. Just to finish you added a bit of anti-audiophile rant sauce before serving.
You can do better than that. Can I suggest next time you try a blender? At less it will not allow us to see immediately you are mixing valuable and remarkable serious work with outdated and dubious work.
BTW, considering that those who do not share your view have closed minds is a bad tactic. Any basic manual in the art of debating will explain you why.
Tim,
Ii seems you have taken all your very few usual arguments, joined them in a bowl, got your kitchen mixer, and mixed, folded, beat and whipped it all. Just to finish you added a bit of anti-audiophile rant sauce before serving.
You can do better than that. Can I suggest next time you try a blender? At less it will not allow us to see immediately you are mixing valuable and remarkable serious work with outdated and dubious work.
BTW, considering that those who do not share your view have closed minds is a bad tactic. Any basic manual in the art of debating will explain you why.
The problem is that all the tests tell us exactly what we already know: short term memory isn't a reliable indicator. Any basic psych or motor skills book will tell you that. Actually reading about short term memory should be mandatory but I doubt too many here have actually explored the subject. We don't even fully understand how we convert from short to long term memory, esp. when it comes to unconscious stimuli. Sp this is all a moot subject.
Also, every test has scope and a range of application. Surely for many purposes short term blind tests are the correct tool and much more reliable than long term in biased conditions, if properly carried and analyzed. But they seem inadequate for checking high-end performance.
Surely that has been addressed before. Is there any reason that a blind test has to be short term?
Or is that again reflecting the conversion of short into long term memory? Short term memory is bottlenecked by using serial rather than parallel processing. See Schmidt and Wrisberg.
http://www.amazon.com/Motor-Learnin...44522280&sr=1-1&keywords=schmidt+and+wrisberg
Why is it also that the principle of individuality is lost here/hear? In an article published in Scientific American Mind, a noted researcher from Arizona State concluded that interaural hearing differences are large enough to swamp out any statistical analysis.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |