3 interesting articles from AES, Journal of Elect Engineers, Eric Barbour

[300A]

Three articles, one from the Audio Engineering Society, one from Eric Barbour, and another from the Journal of Electrical Engineers:

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/select/0898/tube.html

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/select/0898/tubet1.html

http://www.dwfearn.com/tvst1.htm

[mtrycraft]

Three articles, one from the Audio Engineering Society, one from Eric Barbour, and another from the Journal of Electrical Engineers:
http://www.dwfearn.com/tvst1.htm

A 1973 AES article on SS?

[300A]

So what has changed in SS devices?

[mtrycraft]

So what has changed in SS devices?

I am sure a few things have, you think?

[mtrycraft]

[QUOTE=300A]Three articles, one from the Audio Engineering Society, one from Eric Barbour, and another from the Journal of Electrical Engineers:

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/select/0898/tube.html

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/select/0898/tubet1.html

Highly personal opinions only in the second link about the disadvantages of SS. Too bad I couldn't reprint it here.

You need to get better stuff to support your like for tubes, or, actually, you don't need any for you to like tubes, only when you make testable claims for it.

[300A]

[QUOTE=mtrycraft]

Three articles, one from the Audio Engineering Society, one from Eric Barbour, and another from the Journal of Electrical Engineers:

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/select/0898/tube.html

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/select/0898/tubet1.html

Highly personal opinions only in the second link about the disadvantages of SS. Too bad I couldn't reprint it here.

You need to get better stuff to support your like for tubes, or, actually, you don't need any for you to like tubes, only when you make testable claims for it.

First off, the AES reviews the content of articles before printing. I am sure the Journal of Electrical Engineers also do the same. Don't want to soil their reputation.

Secondly, transistors haven't changed in their spectral distortion problems, or quantity. It is inherent. They are very similar to tetrode and pentode tubes in distortion products. Triodes are unique. I believe Eric Barbour clearly shows the spectral distortions of different devices, both tube and SS as does the AES article.

Thirdly, the reason for all those SS part numbers is that when manufacturing transistors, IC chips, the variations in hfe are so varied, they didn't want to throw them away as being out of spec. So they assigned different numbers to them.

Granted most of the population isn't that concerned with audio and replacing tubes every so many years. They just want music of reasonable quality, no hot spots for a child to get burned on and energy efficiency (bills are getting high).

[RGA]

First off, the AES reviews the content of articles before printing. I am sure the Journal of Electrical Engineers also do the same. Don't want to soil their reputation.

Secondly, transistors haven't changed in their spectral distortion problems, or quantity. It is inherent. They are very similar to tetrode and pentode tubes in distortion products. Triodes are unique. I believe Eric Barbour clearly shows the spectral distortions of different devices, both tube and SS as does the AES article.

Thirdly, the reason for all those SS part numbers is that when manufacturing transistors, IC chips, the variations in hfe are so varied, they didn't want to throw them away as being out of spec. So they assigned different numbers to them.

Granted most of the population isn't that concerned with audio and replacing tubes every so many years. They just want music of reasonable quality, no hot spots for a child to get burned on and energy efficiency (bills are getting high).

SS Amps are largely the same...the difference is that the measurements have changed to put the newer technology in the best possible light. Wow and flutter on a cd player sure impresses people even though it's worthless as a measurement for cd players.

Speakers on Axis at 1 meter tells you little to nothing of how it actually sounds.

People say the high end has an agenda to get people to spend more money...which may be true. But the large conglomorates selling cheap junk have the BUCKS and they have an agenda as well. The reality is most people are not "into" audio and thus wouldn't it be cheaper for the conglomorate to press the notion that a $200.00 complete stereo system from Costco is as good as it can possibly get. Companies spend money to make buyers feel good about products.

There is an assumption that being a skeptic makes you right. Thus if I write a skeptical magazine then I'm suddenly a more objective magazine.

If all amps are indistinguishable and all cd players are indistibguishable and we go by CR as to what the BEST speakers on the planet are...then basically we may as well take those Bose speakers and connect it to a JVC cd player receiver all in one - and this will obviously be better than the the guy running a B&W or Paradigm set-up with his Rotel or ASL gear.

Where is CR's PROOF - where is the scientific FACT. They are making a claim...they are saying those speakers are BETTER. PROVE it. Prove to me that it will SOUND better to me.

This does not validate the so called "regular magazines" but if there is no listening involved then it's meaningless.

Validity: These people simply don't want to look it up. Even Floyd Toole has STATED that his tests apply to the testing envoironment ONLY. A little thing that very Subjective objectivisists don't mention. Toole knows that the test is not entirely valid...hence the notation of only in the testing environment.

And even then - Hi Fi Choice measures in a room at a listening position - which is why the measurements coincide with the subjective listening experience. If the two don't match - then you MEASURED wrong. period.

Which is not to say everyone is going to agree with Hi-Fi choice...they base it off a panel of listeners blind. They mention that several members didn't like a particular aspect of the sound but others did. On the whole they may give it a 4/5 for sound - but it depends who YOU are. Half may give it a 3 half give it a 5 and think it's the best product going. Another product may get a 5 consensus but 3 of the panel still might have liked that first unit that got an overall 4 stars better.

It's going to depend on you the listener. Interestingly, Michael Colloms is one of the formost experts on audio and he's not so brain dead to rely on testing only. Hi Fi Choice listens in a panel BLind level matched for ALL componants. Interesting that some amps get 3 stars for sound and others get 5. All sound the same - the measurments are not the same either. B'ahh.

Engineers are not scientists. So why would anyone care what an engineer has to say about scientific testing of humans. Engineers can stick what they know...fiddling with gadgets and designing circuits. And even then - The Sugden A21a from the 1960s is still the same now as it was then. In the blind listening session at hi-fi choice it came out on top. In the subjective reviews it comes out on top for the money.

Your article was from what 1973 a good 5-6 years after the Sugden came out...so yes indeed, what has changed so dramatically since then in SS amps to make them better. Most of the AES articles on amps being produced is of a 1980 test of ONE GUY, with his Tanberg(notice they didn't last). No one has said all amps sound different, paying more doesn't ensure it. If I sat in Front of most SS amps even not blind and not level matched they sound the same

[mtrycraft]

First off, the AES reviews the content of articles before printing. I am sure the Journal of Electrical Engineers also do the same. Don't want to soil their reputation.

Secondly, transistors haven't changed in their spectral distortion problems, or quantity. It is inherent. They are very similar to tetrode and pentode tubes in distortion products. Triodes are unique. I believe Eric Barbour clearly shows the spectral distortions of different devices, both tube and SS as does the AES article.

Thirdly, the reason for all those SS part numbers is that when manufacturing transistors, IC chips, the variations in hfe are so varied, they didn't want to throw them away as being out of spec. So they assigned different numbers to them.

Granted most of the population isn't that concerned with audio and replacing tubes every so many years. They just want music of reasonable quality, no hot spots for a child to get burned on and energy efficiency (bills are getting high).

The AES Journal was published in 1973. He must have had a conference presentation first in 1972.
Your other two links is not peer reviwed.

Why not measure some of the tubes and SS today. And, then do some DBT listeing to see if anyone can differentiate between comparable ones. SETs by definition are just another audio joke.

[RGA]

SETs by definition are just another audio joke.

I gather you have 100% of this statement. Al;l people will think they sound worse is that correct?

This is a claim...where is your proof?

[300A]

"Why not measure some of the tubes and SS today. And, then do some DBT listeing to see if anyone can differentiate between comparable ones. SETs by definition are just another audio joke."

First off, DBTs are not reliable, not proof. No scholar I know of will mentioned the results are fact, period. There is obviuosly a sonic diffence between amps and preamps.

Secondly, Who said SETs are the ultimate? I sure didn't. What about PP?

Thirdly, who says the specs measured today are ALL the specs necessary to measure?? You?? Do you have any proof that is true?
I want to see your proof, no sneaking around trying to wiggle out of it, ok.
I want to see you state that there isn't one more spec necessary to explain the sonic differences between components than that already given. And I want to read the reason why not.

[mtrycraft]

"Why not measure some of the tubes and SS today. And, then do some DBT listeing to see if anyone can differentiate between comparable ones. SETs by definition are just another audio joke."

First off, DBTs are not reliable, not proof. No scholar I know of will mentioned the results are fact, period. There is obviuosly a sonic diffence between amps and preamps.

Secondly, Who said SETs are the ultimate? I sure didn't. What about PP?

Thirdly, who says the specs measured today are ALL the specs necessary to measure?? You?? Do you have any proof that is true?
I want to see your proof, no sneaking around trying to wiggle out of it, ok.
I want to see you state that there isn't one more spec necessary to explain the sonic differences between components than that already given. And I want to read the reason why not.

Only a total ... would thins a DBT unreliable. You have zero concept which you have demonstrated time and time again.
Obviously you have not determinde audible differences in anything yet. Please stop showing ignorance and make unfounded claims unsupported by evidence.
You have no evidence of missing data that needs measuring. Hell, you have yet to demonstrate audible differences. There is no explanation warranted for a nonexistant event. Obvioulsy everything is measured well enough. The joke is on you.

[300A]

Only a total ... would thins a DBT unreliable. You have zero concept which you have demonstrated time and time again."

Read below. You have shot yourself in the foot again.

"Obviously you have not determinde audible differences in anything yet. Please stop showing ignorance and make unfounded claims unsupported by evidence."

What evidence have you presented? NONE. And then you shoot your own reference, supporting our position again. Parts measure differently, so it is up to you to prove they don't sound different.

"You have no evidence of missing data that needs measuring. Hell, you have yet to demonstrate audible differences. There is no explanation warranted for a nonexistant event. Obvioulsy everything is measured well enough. The joke is on you.

Avoiding the question for you to prove we have all the measurements necessary, and don't need anymore. Amazing that your reply mentioned only a personal attack. But no Proof when you're asked to present some. Real scientific.

As seen below, you certainly have no evidence to support your position. In fact, you support mine, again.

I have evidence that parts measure differently, even the article "picking capacitors" by Dr. Richard Marsh from MIT, AES article, Journal of Electrical Engineers, Eric Barbour, plus others I could present but why should I when you support my position and knock your own references (which you haven't presented).

This is from another string, you stated:

"Oh, the cap test, better be under DBT. The last one was null but hey, we are still waiting for all the positive ones." (craft's quote)"

Electrolytic capacitor distortion translates to only some -25db down.

"1) Turntables have rumble factors of some 70db down and we hear that

2) "High distortion" tube amps, which you attack, have distortions only 25 - 30db down.

3) So we cannot hear -25db down? Here is what you stated again:

"Oh, the cap test, better be under DBT. The last one was null but hey, we are still waiting for all the positive ones." (craft's quote)

So DBT tests show we can't hear 25db down distortions. Wow, that sure proves how accurate DBT tests are. What is really embarrassing is you shot down your "own" DBT results.

So you must be the "Only a total ... would thins a DBT unreliable" as you continue to make a fool out of yourself.

[mtrycraft]

I gather you have 100% of this statement. Al;l people will think they sound worse is that correct?

This is a claim...where is your proof?

Is that what I said? Or you are reading what you want to read that is not there? That is what you are doing, speculating.

[mtrycraft]

Avoiding the question for you to prove we have all the measurements necessary, and don't need anymore. Amazing that your reply mentioned only a personal attack. But no Proof when you're asked to present some. Real scientific.

No. Actually, you have not presented anything that needs proof. You have yet to demonstrate audible differences let alone that cannot be explained by measurements, current measurements.


As seen below, you certainly have no evidence to support your position. In fact, you support mine, again.


In your dreams.

[b]I have evidence that parts measure differently, even the article "picking capacitors" by Dr. Richard Marsh from MIT, AES article, Journal of Electrical Engineers, Eric Barbour, plus others I could present but why should I when you support my position and knock your own references (which you haven't presented).[/]

WOW. Shoing your ignorance, again. I suppose you can cite my post stating parts don't measure difference. WOW.

Then what? You jump off the bridge and make unsupported claims of audibility. WOW. No evidence, no nothing but your imagination.



"Oh, the cap test, better be under DBT. The last one was null but hey, we are still waiting for all the positive ones." (craft's quote)"

Electrolytic capacitor distortion translates to only some -25db down.

Oh sure. That is why everything has sooo little distortion, right? LOL.






"Oh, the cap test, better be under DBT. The last one was null but hey, we are still waiting for all the positive ones." (craft's quote)

So DBT tests show we can't hear 25db down distortions. Wow, that sure proves how accurate DBT tests are. What is really embarrassing is you shot down your "own" DBT results.


No. That is your speculated imagination only. What DBT shows is what you can hear and cannot hear. Your sighted listeing shown only your biased perceptions and how unreliable and useless, worthless they are for difference detection. I thought you were the bright one.

So you must be the "Only a total ... would thins a DBT unreliable" as you continue to make a fool out of yourself.

Not at all. You are still in the dog house, in the corner. When you have reality in hand let us know, along with your evidence for audible differences. LOL

[mtrycraft]

One more, but it will not sink in. Nothing has yet.

You need to pay attension, read the right material, AND, stop trying to cross correlate one area of hearing to another: vinyl rumble to distortion levels.
You need to get out and do some research for a change on what is audible and what is not audible, specifically distortion. But then I'd rather talk to the brick wall, at least something sticks to it.

"Just detectable distortion Level" James Moir, Wireless World, Feb 1981, p32-35

"Audible Amplifier Distortion is not a Mystery" Peter J. Baxandall, Wireless World, Nov 1977, page 63-66.

"Ten Years of A/B/X Testing", David Clark, AES print 3167, 1991.

No, I will not tell you what is in there. You hunt and find out. But I doubt you will. Why would you? Your world may be turned upside down.

[RGA]

"Originally Posted by mtrycraft
SETs by definition are just another audio joke."


Proof? Show me the definition!

[RGA]

One more, but it will not sink in. Nothing has yet.

You need to pay attension, read the right material, AND, stop trying to cross correlate one area of hearing to another: vinyl rumble to distortion levels.
You need to get out and do some research for a change on what is audible and what is not audible, specifically distortion. But then I'd rather talk to the brick wall, at least something sticks to it.

"Just detectable distortion Level" James Moir, Wireless World, Feb 1981, p32-35

"Audible Amplifier Distortion is not a Mystery" Peter J. Baxandall, Wireless World, Nov 1977, page 63-66.

"Ten Years of A/B/X Testing", David Clark, AES print 3167, 1991.

No, I will not tell you what is in there. You hunt and find out. But I doubt you will. Why would you? Your world may be turned upside down.

Just curious but you blast 300A's sources because they're old and then you use an article from 1981, 1977 and a 12 year old article to support your claim. How old is old and why is his 1977 article to old but your 1977 article not old and out of date. Or is that you just pick and choose what you like?

DBT does not prove A and B sound the same...says it right on the ABX site from Oakland University. What it shows is a correlation that people can't distinguish, (accurately) a difference within the testing environment with the specific people under test on that day. There is no support for audible differences under that test in that test environment. If that were enough of a proof Yorx would advertise that their $45.00 amp is indistinguishable from 70k Krell Mono-blocks. Jeez I wonder why all those smart engineers working for all these low end companies have not caught on. Afraid of being sued...if they were right they would have no need to worry - only Krell would worry. Unless of course the test isn't 100% viable --- Ahh that's true isn't it.

[300A]

Avoiding the question for you to prove we have all the measurements necessary, and don't need anymore. Amazing that your reply mentioned only a personal attack. But no Proof when you're asked to present some. Real scientific.

No. Actually, you have not presented anything that needs proof. You have yet to demonstrate audible differences let alone that cannot be explained by measurements, current measurements.


As seen below, you certainly have no evidence to support your position. In fact, you support mine, again.


In your dreams.

[b]I have evidence that parts measure differently, even the article "picking capacitors" by Dr. Richard Marsh from MIT, AES article, Journal of Electrical Engineers, Eric Barbour, plus others I could present but why should I when you support my position and knock your own references (which you haven't presented).[/]

WOW. Shoing your ignorance, again. I suppose you can cite my post stating parts don't measure difference. WOW.

Then what? You jump off the bridge and make unsupported claims of audibility. WOW. No evidence, no nothing but your imagination.



"Oh, the cap test, better be under DBT. The last one was null but hey, we are still waiting for all the positive ones." (craft's quote)"

Electrolytic capacitor distortion translates to only some -25db down.

Oh sure. That is why everything has sooo little distortion, right? LOL.






"Oh, the cap test, better be under DBT. The last one was null but hey, we are still waiting for all the positive ones." (craft's quote)

So DBT tests show we can't hear 25db down distortions. Wow, that sure proves how accurate DBT tests are. What is really embarrassing is you shot down your "own" DBT results.


No. That is your speculated imagination only. What DBT shows is what you can hear and cannot hear. Your sighted listeing shown only your biased perceptions and how unreliable and useless, worthless they are for difference detection. I thought you were the bright one.

So you must be the "Only a total ... would thins a DBT unreliable" as you continue to make a fool out of yourself.

Not at all. You are still in the dog house, in the corner. When you have reality in hand let us know, along with your evidence for audible differences. LOL

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"No. Actually, you have not presented anything that needs proof. You have yet to demonstrate audible differences let alone that cannot be explained by measurements, current measurements."

Acutally, if you can measure the differences, by using physics, you must prove they do sound the same, which you can't.

"WOW. Shoing your ignorance, again. I suppose you can cite my post stating parts don't measure difference. WOW.
Then what? You jump off the bridge and make unsupported claims of audibility. WOW. No evidence, no nothing but your imagination."

Another evasion of a good answer. If they measure differently, you must prove they sound the same.

"Oh sure. That is why everything has sooo little distortion, right? LOL."

As mentioned before, this type of distortion isn't measured by harmonic distortion analyzers, which you indicated doesn't need to be measured and listed. It is another form of distortion that isn't listed. Ignorance isn't good crafts.

"No. That is your speculated imagination only. What DBT shows is what you can hear and cannot hear. Your sighted listeing shown only your biased perceptions and how unreliable and useless, worthless they are for difference detection. I thought you were the bright one."

As pointed out before, you can hear distortion -25db down from a tube amplifier but not from an electrolytic cap and not -70db down Turntable rumble. Really makes sense crafts.

As RGA pointed out, you seem to select which articles you subscribe too. Who decides? You?

Sorry but you are in the dog house my friend and no amount of cunning will get you out. If a part measures differently, by definition, you must be the one to prove it doesn't sound different. You lose again.

ps. Your wireless link only seems to provided telephone service. Want to provide a more specific link?

"DBT does not prove A and B sound the same...says it right on the ABX site from Oakland University. What it shows is a correlation that people can't distinguish, (accurately) a difference within the testing environment with the specific people under test on that day. There is no support for audible differences under that test in that test environment."

RGA, you have to remember we aren't trying to convince crafts, but helping others see the exaggerations craft seems to use to support his views. His references conclusions are never seemingly the same as his views.

[Pat D]

I gather you have 100% of this statement. Al;l people will think they sound worse is that correct?

This is a claim...where is your proof?

Sorry, but mtry did not make a claim as to what people will like.

[300A]

I am sure a few things have, you think?

What changes have occurred in SS? Lower distortion, distortion products changes? Tell us, be specific. No assumption now.

Prove it, that is what you have told us to do. Now you do it.

[mtrycraft]

What changes have occurred in SS? Lower distortion, distortion products changes? Tell us, be specific. No assumption now.

Prove it, that is what you have told us to do. Now you do it.

Check the specs on th eold and new. Easy, not hard. Even you can do this, if you are interested.

[mtrycraft]

Just curious but you blast 300A's sources because they're old and then you use an article from 1981, 1977 and a 12 year old article to support your claim. How old is old and why is his 1977 article to old but your 1977 article not old and out of date. Or is that you just pick and choose what you like?

DBT does not prove A and B sound the same...says it right on the ABX site from Oakland University. What it shows is a correlation that people can't distinguish, (accurately) a difference within the testing environment with the specific people under test on that day. There is no support for audible differences under that test in that test environment. If that were enough of a proof Yorx would advertise that their $45.00 amp is indistinguishable from 70k Krell Mono-blocks. Jeez I wonder why all those smart engineers working for all these low end companies have not caught on. Afraid of being sued...if they were right they would have no need to worry - only Krell would worry. Unless of course the test isn't 100% viable --- Ahh that's true isn't it.

How can it be old if well know back then?
Oh, and if peole cannot distinguis between two components, I guess they don't sound the same then. No problem, still no difference that can be detected beyond guessing.
That environment, DBT is the gold standard. Indisputable. End of story.

[mtrycraft]

Actually it is you who is out of touch with reality in audio. That is why you make all those unsupportable claims with no evidence. Imagination is just that.

[300A]

As soon as you have the guts to show one study whose conclusion is stated as "factual", show us crafts.
Subjective audio DBTs are basically worthless, pork barrel.

[RGA]

As soon as you have the guts to show one study whose conclusion is stated as "factual", show us crafts.
Subjective audio DBTs are basically worthless, pork barrel.

The problem is that most studied tests in controlled environment have some correlation in real world listening environments...and we can go on ad nauseum about the tests forever, but the test environment is not the same(identical) to a non test environment...and there is no coreelation between the two but a lot of assumptions and innuendo as to what the result of a test says and what the real world says. Floyd Toole's also notes that these are results for the test environment not a real world environment. DBT's have shown that within the testing environment and the controls set-up - people have failed to distinguish differences to a statistically significant level better than chance.

That is ALL there is on the subject...Innuendo by the uninformed beyond this is why Americans got fat eating low fat diets for 30 years instead of following the once maligned now considered food God Dr. Atkins. The body of sicence was wrong because they took short cuts and made ASSUMPTIONS with having ALL the facts. Audio may not be the same...but there are certainly ASSUMPTIONS. There are two terms about testing Reliability which reproduces the same results over and over so we can reliably predict what is going to happen in a test involving trials. Then there is validitiy...how does what is being tested directly relate to that of reality. If a stereo is designed to provide long term musical enjoyment in one's home - then how valid is a test not set-up to that goal? Vague yes...but lots of bad tests have reliability, validity is the most important and of the two MORE important than reliability. You'd need both. Problem is that the direct problem is that normal listening is sighted, which is contradictory to what a DBT demands...it is this that causes "some" of the confusion and bickering. Nothing wrong with Double Blind tests - The complete story not according to psychologists or statisticians - the complete story to engineers? pick your field.