-
3 interesting articles from AES, Journal of Elect Engineers, Eric Barbour
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 300A
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?
-
So what has changed?
So what has changed in SS devices?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 300A
So what has changed in SS devices?
I am sure a few things have, you think?
-
[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.
-
More to it then that.
[QUOTE=mtrycraft]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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).
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 300A
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 300A
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
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?
-
Typical propaganda...
"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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
-
You shot yourself down again, LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
"Originally Posted by mtrycraft
SETs by definition are just another audio joke."
Proof? Show me the definition!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
-
You lose again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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.
-
Imagining things?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
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.
-
Tell us
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 300A
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
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.
-
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.
-
As soon as you show
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 300A
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.
-
Caught yourself again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
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..
Really? Proven a 100%? What would that be? I think you are confused about the court of science. I know, actually.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
Really? Proven a 100%? What would that be? I think you are confused about the court of science. I know, actually.
DBT does not prove A=B show me in which Psychology testbook it say it? None I know.
Show me a Psychology test using DBT, any of them, where at the end of the test is does not have weasal words sentences such as More tests are necessary...any subject on anything in Psychology...go find it and show me where. On audio would be better none? I know. Keep it to psych tests with APA standards not the drivel you sespouse from the engineers - wrong irreleveant field.
APA or you have NOTHING...period. Show us any?
Still have not provided definition of validity - you have reliability do you even know what the term means - Enginners didn't study it obviously which is why they are not scientists.
DBT results are within the testing environment...Yes nothing is 100% but DBT is not 50% or 10% or anything much at all by itself unless the test is VALID otherwise it's as useless as a sighted test...it's actually dangerous because at least sighted listening you can ignore as grain of salt opinion...poor science in the guise of real science is dangerous...all those fat Americans on scientifically proven low fat diets - science was dead wrong and people died. And now they're all covering their ass saying it was to save the animals and other such drivel.
The FACT is you cannot know if the Sony Brand X will sound the same as Pioneer brand Y ---you often say don't bother no one can tell the difference...every timne you are doing that you make an uninformed assumption...Unless you have a test of the specific componant with that specific person you are guessing - no matter how much correaltion of invalid tests you espouse.
100% fact of determining validity...is your test 100% valid - is it even remotely close...no to the first question and obviously no to the latter...faith in your guesses, faith in the statistics...is still faith.
-
Don't exaggerate
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
Really? Proven a 100%? What would that be? I think you are confused about the court of science. I know, actually.
Really? Then give one study that concludes its results are "FACT". You can't. And if you could, that "fact" would only be in that study, not in the real world, where there are other variables.
And correllated results don't prove anything. Same mistakes, assumptions will lead to the same/bad conclusions. You can't assume anything when doing studies.
How many medical studies have recently been found to be wrong? And this isn't audio subjective testing.
I hope you are honest, even if wrong, and aren't intentionally trying to mislead people.
-
Oh please
From an engineering standpoint the answer is quite simple. All an amplifier should do is AMPLIFY the input signal. Period. People who are looking for an amp to warm up their speakers, or bring about this magical glow, are looking for equipment that is not only amplifying but making music of its own. Too many times people will purchase a speaker that is way too prominent in the treble or sibilant and look for a tube amp that rolls off earlier than a well designed solid state amp will. Just go to the soundstage website and look at the figures. Some of these tube amps have an erratic frequency response with an actual load connected and have distortion figures in the teens when driven at full power. It's absolutely amazing how certain manufacturers of tube equipment are basically selling us ditortion boxes for astronomical prices and people don't realise it.
Multi thousand dollar amp
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/me...reference_99a/
$650 Amp
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/me...s/anthem_pva2/
This is quite funny. The $650 dollar amp has 0.02% distortion at 100W!
The overpriced tube amp is showing 50% distortion in the low frequency region and 15% distortion on the high end!! There's your magic!! It's distortion!!!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbsterv2
From an engineering standpoint the answer is quite simple. All an amplifier should do is AMPLIFY the input signal. Period. People who are looking for an amp to warm up their speakers, or bring about this magical glow, are looking for equipment that is not only amplifying but making music of its own. Too many times people will purchase a speaker that is way too prominent in the treble or sibilant and look for a tube amp that rolls off earlier than a well designed solid state amp will. Just go to the soundstage website and look at the figures. Some of these tube amps have an erratic frequency response with an actual load connected and have distortion figures in the teens when driven at full power. It's absolutely amazing how certain manufacturers of tube equipment are basically selling us ditortion boxes for astronomical prices and people don't realise it.
Multi thousand dollar amp
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/me...reference_99a/
$650 Amp
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/me...s/anthem_pva2/
This is quite funny. The $650 dollar amp has 0.02% distortion at 100W!
The overpriced tube amp is showing 50% distortion in the low frequency region and 15% distortion on the high end!! There's your magic!! It's distortion!!!
that argument is not valid because measurements are skewed by the people who make and want to SELL you the equipment they can build at far reduced cost to them but not far reduced costs to the buyer.
Tube amplifiers have a subjectively superior form of even order distortion when it does distort.
Stereophile's latest issue measured a tube amplifer which is claimed to be more linear than any solid state amplifier ever built or some such argument.
There have been amps subjectively preferred that had 80% distortion according to UHF. Distortion that doesn't just hack off notes and create some resmblence of the initial signal is prefferred by many and not preferred by many.
Generally most people prefer the type of distrotion exhibited by tube amplifiers which is why so many people who own the likes of Krell and Bryston dump them for tube amplifiers and not very many you will find ever go the other way. Funny thing that is - people don't like to be nausiated by fatiguing bright systems.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
that argument is not valid because measurements are skewed by the people who make and want to SELL you the equipment they can build at far reduced cost to them but not far reduced costs to the buyer.
Tube amplifiers have a subjectively superior form of even order distortion when it does distort.
Stereophile's latest issue measured a tube amplifer which is claimed to be more linear than any solid state amplifier ever built or some such argument.
There have been amps subjectively preferred that had 80% distortion according to UHF. Distortion that doesn't just hack off notes and create some resmblence of the initial signal is prefferred by many and not preferred by many.
Generally most people prefer the type of distrotion exhibited by tube amplifiers which is why so many people who own the likes of Krell and Bryston dump them for tube amplifiers and not very many you will find ever go the other way. Funny thing that is - people don't like to be nausiated by fatiguing bright systems.
The Anthem amp isn't clipping off any notes 100W on down. We can argue about clipping all day long but if your system has enough power and the speakers are efficient enough then the amp shouldn't clip. I'll agree that when most SS amps are driven overboard they square off the waveform making the music unlistenable. I don't know about you but my SS amp doesn't even come close to doing that.
-
Some more info. and insights
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
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.
-
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?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbsterv2
The Anthem amp isn't clipping off any notes 100W on down. We can argue about clipping all day long but if your system has enough power and the speakers are efficient enough then the amp shouldn't clip. I'll agree that when most SS amps are driven overboard they square off the waveform making the music unlistenable. I don't know about you but my SS amp doesn't even come close to doing that.
But we're looking at distortion measured at full power...You can buy a sub $1000.00 Antique Sound Labs AQ1003DT at full power will have a rating of 3%. Bad by SS standards but unheard and more pleasing at full power than the solid stater clipping at full power. The resto fo the time the amp is aroun 1%(unheard).
No one is arguing the numbers that Solid State manufacturers measure. They measure those things that make their products look better to the unsuspecting. Wow and Flutter on cd players for instance are FAR superior to turntables and so it would be prominant on the spec sheet to get consumers to buy cd players rather than a tape deck or turntable. The fact that Wow and flutter has next to nothing to do with cd players and Jitter numbers are totally left off is not surprising. One can argue the merrits of audibility of jitter but it is there in the audible spectrum and many are unflattering numbers. In a sense the number that matters is left off.
Where is linearity of Solid state amps? Why were older SS amps showing distortion etc at full power when that was where they performed their best? At lower volumes they sounded far worse...but you never saw normal listening levels. Tubes at full power get worse than at normal levels. So the numbers get skewed to making one look better than the other(or a lot of half truths).
I'm not a tube guru by any stretch, btw. My 2 favorite integrated amps under $2500.00 are SS amps. Depending on the speakers though, tubes can sound very good and plenty of others leave their Brystons, Krell, Levinsons, for tube amps.
Interestingly the Anthem Amp 1 is a tube power amp that is considered by many including me to be superior in sound to their solid state cousins. If however you need a LOT of power then 40Watts or so may not be enough...but usually 40 Watts is more than enough to drive 95% of the speakers on the current market.
I'm not saying one should buy tubes over solid state, not at all, but people do "LIKE" current tube amps better often times than similarly priced SS amps. One can say the SS has better numbers great...but better "sound" is wht I care about whether it be a tube or SS or a hybrid of the two or neither one of the two(Sugden's headmaster is neither tube nor ss).
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbsterv2
From an engineering standpoint the answer is quite simple. All an amplifier should do is AMPLIFY the input signal. Period. People who are looking for an amp to warm up their speakers, or bring about this magical glow, are looking for equipment that is not only amplifying but making music of its own. Too many times people will purchase a speaker that is way too prominent in the treble or sibilant and look for a tube amp that rolls off earlier than a well designed solid state amp will. Just go to the soundstage website and look at the figures. Some of these tube amps have an erratic frequency response with an actual load connected and have distortion figures in the teens when driven at full power. It's absolutely amazing how certain manufacturers of tube equipment are basically selling us ditortion boxes for astronomical prices and people don't realise it.
Multi thousand dollar amp
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/me...reference_99a/
$650 Amp
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/me...s/anthem_pva2/
This is quite funny. The $650 dollar amp has 0.02% distortion at 100W!
The overpriced tube amp is showing 50% distortion in the low frequency region and 15% distortion on the high end!! There's your magic!! It's distortion!!!
I agree that the tube amp isn't very good in my opinion. But there is more to the story than the simple measurements told. Let me discuss some better designs and some problems with SS amps.
First, the distortion of the tube amp may be less than SS amps at one watt. One watt is what one uses most of the time. Transients can easily clip even a 100 watt amp, although the 'idiot" lights usually show the average. A tube amp may only have .005% distortion at one watt, while the SS amp may still have .02% or even higher at one watt.
Secondly, if the SS amp clips by only a watt or two, the distortion may rise to 10%.
Thirdly, the order of distortion makes a difference, and is noticed inversely as the order is increased. Thus 5th order is worse than 3 order, and 9th order is even worse than 5th order.
Next we have distortion caused by global feedback, which gives the low distortion figure using a simple sine wave. A simple sine wave, when fedback will result in a simple sinewave, even if it takes time to feed through the amp and then is fed back. The phase may be changed, but the distortion analyzer won't register this problem.
Music is complex with lots of different frequencies and their natural harmonics. The time it takes for the complex signal to feed through the amp and then feed back to the input doesn't coincide with the original input signal. By the time the input signal arrives at the output and is fedback, the input signal has changed. The higher the frequency, the more pronounced this problem is. But harmonic distortion is measured using a simple sinewave, not a complex signal, thus is useless when measuring this kind of distortion. And harmonic distortion figures are better with global feedback, even if they don't simulate real music.
Another problem is that frequency response can be artifically inflated when global negative feedback is used. You would be surprised how limited the frequency response is without feedback in many SS amps. However, the more feedback because of poor open loop response, the more "timing" problems you have.
So the specs given don't tell the whole story, actually not much of the story.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
But we're looking at distortion measured at full power...You can buy a sub $1000.00 Antique Sound Labs AQ1003DT at full power will have a rating of 3%. Bad by SS standards but unheard and more pleasing at full power than the solid stater clipping at full power. The resto fo the time the amp is aroun 1%(unheard).
No one is arguing the numbers that Solid State manufacturers measure. They measure those things that make their products look better to the unsuspecting. Wow and Flutter on cd players for instance are FAR superior to turntables and so it would be prominant on the spec sheet to get consumers to buy cd players rather than a tape deck or turntable. The fact that Wow and flutter has next to nothing to do with cd players and Jitter numbers are totally left off is not surprising. One can argue the merrits of audibility of jitter but it is there in the audible spectrum and many are unflattering numbers. In a sense the number that matters is left off.
Where is linearity of Solid state amps? Why were older SS amps showing distortion etc at full power when that was where they performed their best? At lower volumes they sounded far worse...but you never saw normal listening levels. Tubes at full power get worse than at normal levels. So the numbers get skewed to making one look better than the other(or a lot of half truths).
I'm not a tube guru by any stretch, btw. My 2 favorite integrated amps under $2500.00 are SS amps. Depending on the speakers though, tubes can sound very good and plenty of others leave their Brystons, Krell, Levinsons, for tube amps.
Interestingly the Anthem Amp 1 is a tube power amp that is considered by many including me to be superior in sound to their solid state cousins. If however you need a LOT of power then 40Watts or so may not be enough...but usually 40 Watts is more than enough to drive 95% of the speakers on the current market.
I'm not saying one should buy tubes over solid state, not at all, but people do "LIKE" current tube amps better often times than similarly priced SS amps. One can say the SS has better numbers great...but better "sound" is wht I care about whether it be a tube or SS or a hybrid of the two or neither one of the two(Sugden's headmaster is neither tube nor ss).
But how do you know that 1% distortion is not audible and that figure is better than the Anthem amp? The ASL 1003 is going to generate odd order harmonic distortion as well isn't it? Unless it's a SET it will. It all boild down to this. Any well designed system will never have to go into clipping. I totally agree that when a SS amp clips it sounds horrible. But when it's NOT clipping it's transparent, linear, and clean sounding. Exactly what an amp should do. Nothing except amplify. I've heard many different speakers and that's where the problem usually lies. Prominent treble. Thin bass. I say fix the problem at the source! I look at it this way RGA. All the way up to the speaker we're dealing with a 2 dimensional signal. Amplitude vs. Time. There's no reason engineers should screw that up. Speakers are different. They have to take a 2D signal and make it live and breathe. Anyway my $0.02. Peace :)
|