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

[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.

[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.

[300A]

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.

Agreed, assumptions are made that completely invalidate the tests.
Two points I would like to reply too.

1) Who decides which tests are valid and which aren't?

2) One can duplicate, over and over again, and get the same results each time as assumptions can lead people to the same conclusions, thus total inaccuracy.

For instance, how many times do you have the subjects listen to the same selection, and over what period of time. Over and over again certainly leads to the blending of the sound of the two different pieces of gear. You will always get the results of no difference. This happens visually too. Pretty close to black will be perceived as black if shown enough times. (This applies to any color, one the actual color and another that is close to that color.)

Another problem is if any comments are made, it could end up being deceitful. And in fact, deceit was directed toward the subjects, causing erroneous results. Crafts used one reference in which this occured.

[mtrycraft]

Agreed, assumptions are made that completely invalidate the tests.
Two points I would like to reply too.

1) Who decides which tests are valid and which aren't?

2) One can duplicate, over and over again, and get the same results each time as assumptions can lead people to the same conclusions, thus total inaccuracy.

For instance, how many times do you have the subjects listen to the same selection, and over what period of time. Over and over again certainly leads to the blending of the sound of the two different pieces of gear. You will always get the results of no difference. This happens visually too. Pretty close to black will be perceived as black if shown enough times. (This applies to any color, one the actual color and another that is close to that color.)

Another problem is if any comments are made, it could end up being deceitful. And in fact, deceit was directed toward the subjects, causing erroneous results. Crafts used one reference in which this occured.

It ain't you who decides. People in the know decide. The court of science decides. It has been decided, contrary to either of you claiming otherwise.
The value of DBT to determine audible differences is indisputable in the court of science. Period.
Your sighted home listeing for differences has no real meaning as it is unreliable, hence has no meaning. Not the same as what one enjoys or not.
Read some Journals in Acoustics, Psychology, psychoacoustics, you name it. DBT rules in reliability. That is a fact.

[300A]

It ain't you who decides. People in the know decide. The court of science decides. It has been decided, contrary to either of you claiming otherwise.
The value of DBT to determine audible differences is indisputable in the court of science. Period.
Your sighted home listeing for differences has no real meaning as it is unreliable, hence has no meaning. Not the same as what one enjoys or not.
Read some Journals in Acoustics, Psychology, psychoacoustics, you name it. DBT rules in reliability. That is a fact.

Using the term "The court of science" is interesting since the DBT tests are an inexact science, thus not factual by definition.

"people in the know decide"

Since when is that proof? "Deciding" isn't proof, it is opinion by definition. I want proof crafts, not your exaggerated/uneducated general comments.
It is up to you to prove that DBT tests are factual. You can't do it.
Give some references to support your unsubstantiated claims.

"Your sighted home listeing for differences has no real meaning as it is unreliable, hence has no meaning."

And yet, DBT tests are not factual as you have just pointed out above, it is decisions/ opinions. So they are also unreliable.

So in the end, you are only breathing opinions.

[RGA]

It ain't you who decides. People in the know decide. The court of science decides. It has been decided, contrary to either of you claiming otherwise.
The value of DBT to determine audible differences is indisputable in the court of science. Period.
Your sighted home listeing for differences has no real meaning as it is unreliable, hence has no meaning. Not the same as what one enjoys or not.
Read some Journals in Acoustics, Psychology, psychoacoustics, you name it. DBT rules in reliability. That is a fact.

The court of science...a buch of people that happen to agree on something...a bunch of people agreeing on something doesn't make it a fact unless it is a proven 100% fact. Your inclusion of psychology here is dead wroong other than on reliability...and it takes validity to gain any understanding.

You can have lots of reliability...reliably wrong too. And the test you have never, notr has any of these engineers demonstrated is valid which is why none of you ever looks up the definition or can even post the definition of either the term validity or how it applies here.

I like the way you shift it back to sighted listening as if to say that if someone complains about validity thtathey are defending sighted listening? Not so...silly strawman.

Define Validity, tell me how it applies to real world listening for what a stereo was designed to do? You can't. Now you may say it's more valid than sighted listening and the indication is that people may not be able to distinguish differences and that people who claim large differences fail in "controlled environments" to repeat what they claim to hear sighted...all of this i can accept from you. But DBT does not prove that A sounds the same as B...and that also is in the definition of a Double Blind test in My University level Stats book. Failing to distingish a difference statistically in a controlled environment leads to correlation within the test environment. A DBT is not the end all proof...if you think so then you lie because NO scientific community would say this other than you...engineers aren't scientists...sorrry to burst your bubble on this fact.

I certainly have not said sighted testing isreliable...never have. Complaining about a poor test, an invalid test does not mean I favour the opposite. You seem to only like black and white in a grey science of psychology. So if you fail a less than ideal not 100% valid test then the opposite (the black to the white) is the case? No sorry now you're playing in the much maligned non agreed upon by any means null hypothesis - which in this area of study is a disaster area.

I have no problem with one who supports and "will go with" Double Blind testing here because some correlative evidence is better than nothing(which you are right to say sighted largely, though not entirely without merrit as you would assume, is). Correlational sighted independant observation is less useful but not worthless depending on the issue. It is used by the "court of Psychology." And whether you like it or not, all testing on human beings falls within THIS court and no other court...highest court is Psychology and Statistics. A DBT is an information gathering tool to create correlational informtion within the test environment.

What I personally use it for is to realize that HUGE difference people claim to be HUGE differences are not as claimed when in a DBT test where the HUGE difference can't be heard anymore..This is useful when Cable guru's try and tell me a cable makes more difference than a set of speakers....and well no obviously that is not the case...no difference...no one on the planet in different sets of environments? The stats are perfectly truthful, test is perfectly valid? No sorry nice try - still results in FAITH in the numbers. Faith is like a Religion - no thank you.

[300A]

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.

"The problem is that most studied tests in controlled environment have some correlation in real world listening environments..."

If so, the question becomes how much, what aspects, etc of the real world. Without concrete answers, the testing is again basically worthless. Nothing more than guessing again. Even how the "stereo" is setup could make a difference in the results.

It is obvious crafts doesn't know much about electronics as he didn't understand how DA and DF manifest themselves, thinking it would be measured by a harmonic distortion analyzer.

With this backround, he is obviously in the phycho camp and claims EEs aren't experts in DBT testing. It is also evident that phychos don't understand electronics like EEs do, and therefore do not understand that simply setting up a stereo for a DBT test could easily invalidate the testing.

[RGA]

300a

The reason there is debate about DBT actually has nothing to do with the DBT itself. No one denies the result. The debate is over the validity of the test outside the test environment and to it's degree of relevancy. The definitions of Validity are in Psych and Statistics textbooks. There are arguments over them, there are arguments over null hypothesis etc. In other words you have professional scientists in the field that don't agree...that is hardly the "court of science" who all agree as some suggest. That is simply not so. The fact that 75 out of 100 scientists agree on something does not mean they're correct...it's not a democracy of thought. Maybe the 25% were the smeart ones who got A's and the other 75 are scientific dim wits who mass in numbers rather than original thought. In the end there are far too many maybe's going on.

While I have reservations and ANY good scientist relying on DBT's should have reservations they are not there for no reason. They serve to help us at LEAST a little bit. For instance I walked into my local big box chain and the salesman said he had $800.00CDN monster cables that he connected up to his 20 year old speakers and he claims it made more of a difference than buying a new set of $800.00speakers. It is these claims that can dupe the unsuspecting. For instance if he had 20 year old bare wire(which he said he did) then ANY new speaker cable would likely make a difference over oxidized wire(and the bigger guage and tighter connection to the speaker).

And it is here where we need a smeblance of reality. I hear the claim that a interconnect or speaker cable makes dramatic differences more than speakers etc...and this is just nonsense in my opinion. I can't rove it's nonsense...so the temptation is to use a double blind test...but it would be hypocritical to use one when I liked to use one and diss them when I don't like them. But they do help to stop exagerrated claims.

If i claim that a cable makes a "night and day difference" and that I can tell the difference between a wire using silver or copper with bang on accuracy...then a basic DBT ois going to show me that in fact I can't tell the difference as accurately as I thought or accurately at all. Then enter the null hypothesis debate if you fail the test then there is no difference...well no in fact it migt mean that it might also mean that the differences are small and the listener is unable to do it statistically well - but it may in fact be there. All of this is why I don't rule it out.

If it measures differently in the audible spectrum, then theoreticlly it can be heard given enough time if only on a subconscious level. Psychologists still don't know wat >80% of our brain SPECIFICALLY does and this includes interpretation of incoming senses from the ear. But if you rely strictly on DBT's that are not wholly valid for your research on what the ear/brain can do...well chances are you're not a brain researcher or a psychologist...and then what you say is irrelevant becasue that is like asking a culinary arts student about the big bang theory. I don't get my knee operated on by an engineering student do you?

[92135011]

I suppose the biggest problem with gear like amplifier types, it is hard to test since what happens theoretically isnt what happens in the real world. The articles posted ran tests in hypothetical situations. I know the tube vs SS debate is very heated everywhere in the audio world.

Audionote says transistor amps are not nearly superior to any form of valve, while class A amp companies claim thier goods provide less distortion, etc than tube could ever accomplish.

Then, of course, we have people who say that they cant stand the artificial SS sound and others who claim that tube users are just part of the hype for retro.

Hey! this sounds a lot like the Mac vs PC debate! I used to use PC, but now I'm a Mac user. I came to the conclusion that PC is not better than Mac or vice versa. It is just merely different. For those PC people ouit there who bash Mac, please try them out yourself before you do so. The most popular comment of why Mac is worse is usually "They are weird." Which is a meaningless explanation.

Tube and SS is the same. HiFi is the final reproduction of music in a way that resembles a live preformance. What's most important is our cognitive functions when listening. If you indeed feel that triode amps are a waste of time, then that will definately have an effect on the actual sound perceived, no matter you compare back to back or not. That's why it's not very good for first time audio buyers to log on forums like this one to get opinions. That only leads people to have a predisposed opinion based on other's opinions. (I'm guilty of the same thing)

One more thing. A 500 bux amp will sound like the best thing in the world if you think it does. Some people are not so fortunate to afford high end gear (like me). I think people have to get off how much they can improve on their gear and start to be positive about things. Lets just face it everyone. Nothing is ever the best. There is and will always be something better. If you bought a 500 bux amp and it excites you, then I think you may be happier than the guy who just spent 20k on some gear that he thinks could be better. Time to spend less time thinking about upgrading and time to spend some time thing about how to enjoy the gear. Remember, we all buy this stuff to enjoy. I cant afford the best in the world, but I'm sure I will enjoy it and that's what is really important.

[RGA]

92135011

Look all companies claim lots of things. SS is easier and cheaper to make - more profit margin. Naturally companies are going to hire people willing to spout whatever the company wants them to spout in order to help SELL something no matter how crappy to convince you it's better. Bose has been artful at the process and so have solid state manufacturers. Since the 25 Watt Sugden A21a will drive all but the most insanely difficult speakers why do you see Sony receivers with a tag line of 1040 watts? Sales. The sound is so crappy they have to sell numbers, graphs, stats, blinking lights, 50 different versions of a surround mode none of which sound good with 2 channel music.

You go out and listen to some of the best representations of both philosophies. Generally speaking, you will find most people who move from "High End" Solid Sstate to "HIGH END" tube amplifiers never ever go back and it's not all because tubes look cool. A lot of them don't even show the tubes - like most Audio Note amplifiers.

Chances are you'll buy into whatever system sounds best to you. I'm willing to give Audio note the benefit of the doubt on their designs because their speaker IMO outclasses every other speaker by all the heavily advertised marketing first companies. Listening to their complete system was the most musically satisfying experiences I have had listening to home audio. And the Audio Note set-up at 40k was less than 1/3 the price of some set-ups I have heard. On a componants individual basis they may not be up to par with similar componants in different set-ups...but then they're not really meant for different set-ups. The are meant as mirror image componants for their other componants. You don't have one 18 inch wheel with three 14 inch wheels when you drive.

The SET amp may sound utterly atrocious for all I know with different gear...but the SET amp I heard with their system had none of what I would have expected from a SET amp. If that's a SET amp then people who say there is no bass no highs and loud hums and hisses and clicks and distortion are uninformed about what a good SET amp is all about. It's like saying Turntables suck because you had a $9.00 fisher price record player therefore ALL turntables are just as bad or the initial Van Morisson releases on CD sounded horrible so ALL cds and ALL cd players sound horrible.

Bottom line is I went and heard the supposedly terrible SETs...and if I was in the market The SET amp I heard with my particular speakers would be at the top of the list looking for someone to take the champ down...and I seriously doubt I would find one...at least not on a sonic level for sane money. If I owned Magnepans my opinion could be totally different where the SET would not make my top 200. http://www.audionote.co.uk/anp2.htm

[92135011]

RGA, that lemme ask you a question if I may.
I found some online thing that is an AN distributor for parts and stuff.
They are about to introduce some of the AN kits as well as other stuff to expand their business.
As you have read from other threads, I'm considering tube audio. I have heard that the AN sensitivity and comparitively flat impedence is great for tube amps, especially the lower powered SETs. How is the AN K you have serving you? If I buy I probably wont get the silver drivers and stuff since I probably dont wanna put out the cash.

Do you think it's safe that I build it myself?