Blind listening verses Sighted Listening..good read [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Blind listening verses Sighted Listening..good read



3db
05-22-2009, 03:32 AM
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

markw
05-22-2009, 04:30 AM
I'm not one of 'em, but I'm sure they will show up shortly to try to refute this article.

3db
05-22-2009, 05:06 AM
I'm not one of 'em, but I'm sure they will show up shortly to try to refute this article.

How can they refrute an article from a musician with a PHD in acoutics? Let them try but you know as well as I that its just their sight opinions :))

Kevio
05-22-2009, 06:35 AM
I'm not one of 'em, but I'm sure they will show up shortly to try to refute this article.They have already arrived. Read the comments following the article. Visit other audio forums and search for this link.

markw
05-22-2009, 06:54 AM
They have already arrived. Read the comments following the article. Visit other audio forums and search for this link.I don't see anything that can honestly invalidate his conclusions. I see an attempt that is quickly squashed, though.

noddin0ff
05-22-2009, 07:08 AM
Seems to imply to me that, for the sighted market, improvements in marketing and product aesthetics will provide more 'bang for the buck' to consumer than sonic design improvements. Methinks Bose may be right after all.

3db
05-22-2009, 07:53 AM
Seems to imply to me that, for the sighted market, improvements in marketing and product aesthetics will provide more 'bang for the buck' to consumer than sonic design improvements. Methinks Bose may be right after all.

Unfortunately I ahve to agree with you. They are marketing machine but the science in sound is a crock full of buffalo doodoo.

Hyfi
05-22-2009, 08:04 AM
So this is only about speakers, and most people think that just because a speaker is bigger, it automatically sounds better. Not true at all. My tiny Dynaudio 42s will outperform many floors tanders and if done blindly would win the votes.

Also, noted was the question of what was the reference for all comparisons? There seemed to be none so which speaker sounded better....than what?

I'm pretty sure you can hear a difference between Synergistic Research $800 speaker cables vs $200 Tara Labs weather your looking or not.

Each of the speakers they tested would also sound different between cables and sources which could account for the blind choices if the synergy between source and smaller speakers was in reality better than with the towers.

None of these tests seem to cover all the bases and leave themselves open to question.

3db
05-22-2009, 09:14 AM
So this is only about speakers, and most people think that just because a speaker is bigger, it automatically sounds better. Not true at all. My tiny Dynaudio 42s will outperform many floors tanders and if done blindly would win the votes.

Also, noted was the question of what was the reference for all comparisons? There seemed to be none so which speaker sounded better....than what?

I'm pretty sure you can hear a difference between Synergistic Research $800 speaker cables vs $200 Tara Labs weather your looking or not.

Each of the speakers they tested would also sound different between cables and sources which could account for the blind choices if the synergy between source and smaller speakers was in reality better than with the towers.

None of these tests seem to cover all the bases and leave themselves open to question.

Blind testing of speakers implies level matched output as well as using the same source through out the test. The only variable will be the speaker being auditioned.

What I find interesting is that were no difference between audiophiles and audiophytes and they both liked disliked the same speakers during the blind test and that only sighted tests swayed the results. Coincident? I don't think so.

Hyfi
05-22-2009, 09:25 AM
Blind testing of speakers implies level matched output as well as using the same source through out the test. The only variable will be the speaker being auditioned.



That was my point, the $3500 pair was not a good match for the sources but when looking at them you would assume they must sound better. There are plenty of smaller less expensive speakers that would rival many of the mega buck floorstanders. If you saw a 11 inch box next to a 4 foot tall box, wouldn't you assume the bigger is better?

3db
05-22-2009, 10:04 AM
That was my point, the $3500 pair was not a good match for the sources but when looking at them you would assume they must sound better. There are plenty of smaller less expensive speakers that would rival many of the mega buck floorstanders. If you saw a 11 inch box next to a 4 foot tall box, wouldn't you assume the bigger is better?

eliminate the souce problem by running the tests thru a powerful SS amp pre-amp combo that will be used for all speakers. Its just the speakers being tested and not the source.

E-Stat
05-22-2009, 10:19 AM
Good read
Here's another more techie version by the same author: AES Report (http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20090522/12206.pdf). I think it is important to understand what the finding mean - and what the findings of other blind tests don't mean.

1. This was a preference test of speakers with easily measured tonal differences.

2. The purpose of the test was to calibrate the trained listeners so that in house experts could be used for future product development instead of costly trials using larger audiences. Note the comment concerning the consistency of the preferences between the trained and untrained listeners. That information was gold to them.

3. You'll note that considerable effort was made to access the *performance* of the listeners.

"The combination of training and experience in controlled listening tests clearly has a positive effect on the listener's performance"

Indeed. Anywhere from 3 to 27 times better! Some even had perfect scores requiring some statistical fudging.

4. I think everyone is in agreement that the room makes a difference. With some speakers, more than others. Here (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_w5OVFV2Gsos/SV0hlaO90nI/AAAAAAAAAEs/1HLEIx_NLR0/s1600-h/SpeakerMoverinAcademy.png) is their "speaker shuffler"

While each speaker is rotated to the same position, this device really only works fairly with monopole box speakers. Dipoles will not get an optimum environment since their rear radiation contributes to their sound. Distance to back wall and the amount of reflections must be carefully optimized.

5. Null results in blind testing are the absence of a conclusion. Despite this, many argue that null tests *prove* one thing or another. This they do not. Nor should the results of tests between components "A" and "B" be automatically extrapolated to "C", "D","E", "F", etc. or - components that didn't even exist at the time of the test. This fallacy is used by Roger Russell with his wire links.

rw

E-Stat
05-22-2009, 10:36 AM
The only variable will be the speaker being auditioned.
While it may be the only *variable*, that does not mean that the results of the test aren't affected by the particular choice of amplifier and cable used. My experience has shown that system matching is critical for optimum results. Which is why I find it difficult to get excited over any single component because it may or may not be the best solution across multiple systems.

The amplifiers I use with the electrostats do not fare as well on my vintage speakers. Conversely, the amplifier I use with them doesn't do as well with the stats. Which is why I don't contribute much to the "which speaker should I buy with this amplifier" sort of question. My approach is to begin with the speaker and buy the best suited amp and speaker cable.

rw

Kevio
05-22-2009, 01:46 PM
Here's another more techie version by the same author: AES Report (http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20090522/12206.pdf). I think it is important to understand what the finding mean - and what the findings of other blind tests don't mean.This looks like a different study to me. It may be based on the same data but the important findings of the originally posted study are:

1/ You get different results if you do a trial sighted vs. blind.
2/ As we all know, placement affects a speaker's sound. Sighted listener did not hear these changes as readily as blind listeners.

I think it is difficult to dispute finding 1 (though some do try). The pro-sighted argument is that finding 1 is the due to sighted testing being more accurate because having your eyes open gives the listener more "context" or somesuch. Finding 2 appears to deflate this explanation.

E-Stat
05-22-2009, 02:35 PM
I think it is difficult to dispute finding 1 (though some do try).
Rather than trying to dispute it, the more important question is how can anyone reasonably use the information? If you are swayed by luxurious wood finishes or big boxes, then do your auditioning twice? Duplicating the shuffler arrangement is virtually impossible unless you use their system. Which also eliminates the possibility of using dipolar speakers as well.

Given the number of speakers with really exotic wood finishes and mirrored piano finish paints of various colors, I certainly don't dispute the cosmetic attraction of certain speakers to some folks. In my case, there is no danger of anyone accusing my speakers of having fancy finishes. The U-1s use tubular steel frames painted with Polane Dead Flat Black polyurethane. Very industrial looking. Similarly, the Polks in the HT are also painted black although the wife might like something *prettier* since they live in the den. The thirty year old Advents in the garage have the vinyl cabinets and are a bit worse for the wear living in that environment. :)

rw

RGA
05-22-2009, 09:29 PM
eliminate the souce problem by running the tests thru a powerful SS amp pre-amp combo that will be used for all speakers. Its just the speakers being tested and not the source.

The problem is that some us think that powerful SS amps suck ass are low resolving amplifiers and make a homegeneous presentation - and in blind test most low impedence high power power amps are viewed to "sound the same." Even the top SS makers in blind level matched auditions prefer tube amps http://www.stereophile.com/reference/70/

Having said that - certainly people are swayed with their eyes and certainly people buy based on looks, impressive technologies.

Hi-Fi Choice magazine does level matched blind auditions with panels of reviewers grading the speakers - I would not put all my stock in a blind test because there is always a minority who "chose the other one" and unless you yourself are in the test then you will never know if you were in the majority or the minority. Claiming to be an audiophile does not mean you have better hearing than the average non audiophile - so that point of interest to me is not a point of interest since to be quite frank - many audiophile own expensive gear that is no better than a lot of less expensive gear - claiming to be an audiophile based on dollars spent is alltogether different. High negative feedback amplfiers are not quality amplifiers IMO - and I can't think of a single exception that I have heard.

markw
05-23-2009, 05:08 AM
Ultimately, in spite of all the whining about the inadequacies of the test, the simple fact is that the different results between sighted and blind listening, even for preference only, is very, very telling.

Wiggle all you want. There ain't no escaping that simple fact.

kexodusc
05-23-2009, 05:26 AM
I wonder what physically blind people think about all these tests?

Kevio
05-23-2009, 06:49 AM
Rather than trying to dispute it, the more important question is how can anyone reasonably use the information?If you want to select purely the best sounding speakers, audition with your eyes closed. If you'd rather choose the speakers you like the best, go ahead and peek.

But I don't see a future with blindfolded retail so I guess that's not practical. To me it says there's more to one's appreciation of audio equipment than the sound. There's finish, manufacturer spiel, peer acceptance, fancy glowing tubes, price, status and more.

In some cases there's even a bit of reverse psychology spun it - my speakers are homely but they sound great!

It's a rich experience.

02audionoob
05-23-2009, 06:55 AM
My speakers look very nice with their cherry veneer. I have now lost all faith in their ability to produce music.

mlsstl
05-23-2009, 07:24 AM
E-Stat wrote: Rather than trying to dispute it, the more important question is how can anyone reasonably use the information? If you are swayed by luxurious wood finishes or big boxes, then do your auditioning twice?
The answer to the issue of blind testing heavily depends on who is doing the test and for what purpose.

If I'm simply choosing a home stereo, ultimately I'm just going to buy what I like. The influence of appearance, brand, price, exclusivity and so on will remain an active part of my daily use of the equipment. In fact, if snobbery is one of my primary goals - conscious or unconscious - then blind testing can actually be an unwanted affront if it reveals info at odds with my beliefs.

OTOH, if I'm a researcher or designer who is truly looking for superior audio performance, blind testing becomes far more important since it helps eliminate non-audio biases. After the desired performance is obtained, if the marketing folks wish to gussy things up to appeal to those non-audio biases, fine. But many serious designers are going to want to know the true performance of their product unencumbered by a hodge-podge of psychological factors.

That said, blind tests can be useful at the consumer end. While it is difficult to design a test procedure that is easy to use, one can still do simple things that move toward reducing the effect of bias. While it can be a blow to the ego to find out that a long-held belief isn't quite as credible as you thought, such knowledge, once absorbed, can help an audiophile redirect his efforts toward things that will get him better results.

The catch in all of this is our ego which is incredibly defensive about what we believe. That exhibits itself through the following mechanism. When we hear a "fact" that agrees with our belief, it is accepted immediately and uncritically - there will be no examination of the test procedures for points of weakness.

However, if the "fact" challenges what we believe, we'll get out our extra powerful microscope and start examining the test process for anything and everything that can be used to invalidate the results. One sees that repeatedly from the offended parties anytime results from a blind test are posted in an audio forum.

However, none of this is a surprise. It just proves that audiophiles are human. ;-)

RGA
05-23-2009, 06:19 PM
Ultimately, in spite of all the whining about the inadequacies of the test, the simple fact is that the different results between sighted and blind listening, even for preference only, is very, very telling.

Wiggle all you want. There ain't no escaping that simple fact.

Does it tell us anyone with one wit of logic would not already know. Most audio shoppers are male - most males shop with their eyes - in every aspect of life males are visually motivated - in women we choose, sleek car lines, and audio equipment certainly would not be different. We're also ego driven - more money makes the man - certainly true of Money first capitalist countries - namely but certainly not limited to Americans.and Asian countries which are communist in name only but follow capitalism more than Americans could ever dream of. Compared to where I live in China - America is pure socialism!

No one needs a blind test to illustrate these truths. What a blind test does not prove is that A and B sound the same, it does not prove anything "outside" the test environment specifically.

For instance you could listen to A and B (Whatever product) sighted and prefer A and then blind fail to choose A - if the test mattered a damn then when you went back to sighted you would "believe" they sounded the same. But if you still prefer A then you're stuck because the REAL valid usual experience is sighted - and if A you deem better to you then it's better to you and you buy it. DBT's in audio score real low points in the area of validity - it is 100% irrifutable psychologuically true - the engineers may not get it but they're not scientists and there are so many holes in their 16 trial test that is laughable to anyone with a grade 9 science education. The test is great - the conclusions drawn are astoundingly bad.

Jimmy C
05-24-2009, 12:54 PM
[QUOTE=RGA]Does it tell us anyone with one wit of logic would not already know. Most audio shoppers are male - most males shop with their eyes - in every aspect of life males are visually motivated - in women we choose, sleek car lines, and audio equipment certainly would not be different.

I can remember bringing a few friends to Audio Den here on Long Island, (still there...audioden.com) when they had a much smaller store at their beginning. $h!t... going back almost 30 years. My friend Joe Low (yup... his real name... try telling that to the Police) looking at the window display, and said: "I like those"!

He was referring to an early Polk, not sure of the model no., 10C maybe? about a 10" drone on the bottom, two side-by-side 6" or so mid-woofs, and a tweeter on top. He didn't even listen to 'em yet!

Actually, they did sound pretty good at the time, but...

Yes, we shop with our eyes.

E-Stat
05-24-2009, 03:33 PM
OTOH, if I'm a researcher or designer who is truly looking for superior audio performance, blind testing becomes far more important since it helps eliminate non-audio biases....However, none of this is a surprise. It just proves that audiophiles are human. ;-)
As are researchers. There is a decided bias in Harman's tests using their "shuffler". Sean Olive responded to a post I made over at AA. The response will be quite interesting.

Response to Sean Olive (http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/5/53630.html)

FWIW, I've never been swayed by exotic wood finishes or fancy multi-colored piano finish paints. My main speakers have steel frames painted in flat black Polane polyurethane. The Polks in the HT are likewise painted black although a more glossy black. The double New Advents in the garage have the utility vinyl finish. I couldn't give a $hit about bubinga wood or "X" cabinet material. :)

rw

JoeE SP9
05-24-2009, 10:03 PM
I'm with you E-Stat. I don't give a damn what a speaker looks like. The sound is the only thing that matters to me.

Feanor
05-25-2009, 07:11 AM
As are researchers. There is a decided bias in Harman's tests using their "shuffler". Sean Olive responded to a post I made over at AA. The response will be quite interesting.

Response to Sean Olive (http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/5/53630.html)

FWIW, I've never been swayed by exotic wood finishes or fancy multi-colored piano finish paints. My main speakers have steel frames painted in flat black Polane polyurethane. The Polks in the HT are likewise painted black although a more glossy black. The double New Advents in the garage have the utility vinyl finish. I couldn't give a $hit about bubinga wood or "X" cabinet material. :)

rw

Olive is dismissive of the issue of speaker positioning in general as well as dipole positioning specifically. Nevertheless this doesn't negate the principle of DBT for evaluating sound preferences/quality.

Harmon International has been building speakers to Floyd Toole formula for quite few years now. Not that that is such a bad thing, for example, the highly reputed Revel line. Not my cup of tea either, though.

3db
05-25-2009, 07:17 AM
While it may be the only *variable*, that does not mean that the results of the test aren't affected by the particular choice of amplifier and cable used. My experience has shown that system matching is critical for optimum results. Which is why I find it difficult to get excited over any single component because it may or may not be the best solution across multiple systems.

The amplifiers I use with the electrostats do not fare as well on my vintage speakers. Conversely, the amplifier I use with them doesn't do as well with the stats. Which is why I don't contribute much to the "which speaker should I buy with this amplifier" sort of question. My approach is to begin with the speaker and buy the best suited amp and speaker cable.

rw

I respectively disagree with you but before I go on, I would not buy spekaers soley on DBT because their is the WAF which is probablyu one of the biggest factors in purchasing speakers, espcially large floor standing types.

I disagree with you that with a poweful solid state amp that cable matching and speaker matching is critical. I beleive all SS and all cables/interconnects sound the same and that
can be easily tested thru a DBT test. Hence the value in DBT.

Speakers are very subjective and one either likes the sound or doesn't. I don't see much value there but for things such as SS amps and cables, a DBT would finally dispell that myth.

E-Stat
05-25-2009, 07:22 AM
Olive is dismissive of the issue of speaker positioning in general as well as dipole positioning specifically.
I find that incredibly ironic.


Nevertheless this doesn't negate the principle of DBT for evaluating sound preferences/quality.
No, but it proves he is unconcerned about optimum results.


Not my cup of tea either, though.
Nor mine. What does that tell you? :)

rw

E-Stat
05-25-2009, 07:29 AM
I disagree with you that with a poweful solid state amp that cable matching and speaker matching is critical.
With how many electrostatic speakers (with their unusually demanding reactive load) have you compared amplifiers?

rw

3db
05-25-2009, 07:35 AM
The problem is that some us think that powerful SS amps suck ass are low resolving amplifiers and make a homegeneous presentation - and in blind test most low impedence high power power amps are viewed to "sound the same." Even the top SS makers in blind level matched auditions prefer tube amps http://www.stereophile.com/reference/70/

Having said that - certainly people are swayed with their eyes and certainly people buy based on looks, impressive technologies.


.

SS vs tube is a personal taste thing and their is no right nor wrong. The lieks of Anthem, Bryston, SImAudio whicgh are SS amps are not low resolving amps by a long shot. I don't think their is a seperates amp out there that you can classify as low resolviong. Do a spectal analysis on the input signal and teh output signal and the only thing one should see is a difference in ampitude.

02audionoob
05-25-2009, 07:55 AM
I might be off-base here but I think the point of the blog article wasn't to report on whether people care about how their speakers look, but rather whether their perception of sound quality was swayed by looks. There's a big difference, in my mind.

E-Stat
05-25-2009, 07:56 AM
The problem is that some us think that powerful SS amps suck ass are low resolving amplifiers and make a homegeneous presentation
There are exceptions. One of the things that struck me decades ago was how successful Nelson Pass was with balancing the different requirements of low and high power outputs. Then, with the Stasis concept, he literally put two amplifiers in one chassis with their outputs combined in a similar (but more sophisticated) approach found in the Quad 405. Unlike the 405, however, there is zero overall feedback and no reliance upon cheapo op amps and wimpy output sections. My '81 Stasis 3 runs on the class A voltage amp up to about 4 watts / channel (out of 200 @ 4 ohms). The AB current amp takes over past there. Low level resolution is thus excellent. Another reason I purchased it was that the amp was specifically designed to drive the nasty output of the Dayton-Wright electrostats. Its 32 output devices obviate the need for any protection circuitry. For most of its life, it drove Acoustat 2+2s. Today it enjoys a leisurely retirement driving double New Advents where it runs pretty much exclusively on the sweet voltage amp.

His current XA amps use a similar, but fundamentally simpler concept, with even better results. It begins with a simple two-stage single ended class A amp that dominates the low power range. Above a particular threshold, it transitions to a high current - but still class A - output.

I will definitely agree that well designed, but simple circuits sound the best.

rw

E-Stat
05-25-2009, 08:00 AM
There's a big difference, in my mind.
The two are certainly related. The sighted tests favored the ones with the fancier cabinets, chrome trimmed drivers and better name recognition.

rw

3db
05-25-2009, 08:03 AM
With how many electrostatic speakers (with their unusually demanding reactive load) have you compared amplifiers?

rw

What amplifier characteristics are you matching exactly?

Now I do see the need to match speakers with tube amps given a tube's amp relative low power outputs and the fact that impedance also needs to be matched. But in a SS amp, there is no need for impedance matching.

3db
05-25-2009, 08:06 AM
I might be off-base here but I think the point of the blog article wasn't to report on whether people care about how their speakers look, but rather whether their perception of sound quality was swayed by looks. There's a big difference, in my mind.

Thats the biggest aspect in that article that I noticed..sited tests makes a difference no matter what component is being tested and the only way to get around the preducisms involved with seeing the test subject is doing it blindly.

E-Stat
05-25-2009, 08:10 AM
What amplifier characteristics are you matching exactly?
Hint: I already provided one answer.

rw

3db
05-25-2009, 08:26 AM
Hint: I already provided one answer.

rw

I saw no electrical property hinted too by you. All I saw is your prference for amps to what speakers you own. So the question still stands. What electrical properties are you trying to match with your speakers?

Pat D
05-25-2009, 08:28 AM
While each speaker is rotated to the same position, this device really only works fairly with monopole box speakers. Dipoles will not get an optimum environment since their rear radiation contributes to their sound. Distance to back wall and the amount of reflections must be carefully optimized. rw

That is irrelevant to the actual tests done, which did not involve dipole speakers.

What you have described is definitely one of the biggest disadvantages of dipoles used as main speakers. :arf:

Pat D
05-25-2009, 08:31 AM
Each of the speakers they tested would also sound different between cables and sources which could account for the blind choices if the synergy between source and smaller speakers was in reality better than with the towers.

Can you provide any evidence for that assertion?

Pat D
05-25-2009, 08:32 AM
Seems to imply to me that, for the sighted market, improvements in marketing and product aesthetics will provide more 'bang for the buck' to consumer than sonic design improvements. Methinks Bose may be right after all.

It may well offer more bang for the buck to some manufacturers!

02audionoob
05-25-2009, 08:35 AM
The two are certainly related. The sighted tests favored the ones with the fancier cabinets, chrome trimmed drivers and better name recognition.

rw

To clarify - I do care what my speakers look like. I like the looks of my speakers and I'd actually be willing to sacrifice some sound quality for looks. In fact, I was consciously making that decision when I chose my current speakers over their brethren from the same manufacturer. That's a totally different issue than the likelihood that I would be subconsciously influenced to think a speaker that looks more impressive actually sounds more impressive.

E-Stat
05-25-2009, 08:41 AM
I saw no electrical property hinted too by you.
Not only did you see it, you quoted me on it! Ok, I guess you do not understand the concept of reactance. Perhaps you might want to research the topic to understand the implications. Power alone does not imply the ability to drive difficult loads. Here's (http://www.sanderssoundsystems.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=52&Itemid=131) one link you should read. It also suggests why tube amps may fare better driving this kind of load.

rw

E-Stat
05-25-2009, 08:45 AM
That's a totally different issue than the likelihood that I would be subconsciously influenced to think a speaker that looks more impressive actually sounds more impressive.
Not really. Studies have shown that people who are more physically attractive are perceived to be smarter, nicer - better people. The psychology is the same.

rw

3db
05-25-2009, 09:00 AM
Not only did you see it, you quoted me on it! Ok, I guess you do not understand the concept of reactance. Perhaps you might want to research the topic to understand the implications. Power alone does not imply the ability to drive difficult loads. Here's (http://www.sanderssoundsystems.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=52&Itemid=131) one link you should read. It also suggests why tube amps may fare better driving this kind of load.

rw

Power is the one thing alone that gives the ability to drive highly reactive loads.....The larger the phase angle between the voltage and current allong with the low impedacne, the higher the load on the amp and its respective power supply. Wiithout reserves, you'll soom be clipping your output signal and introducing all sorts of odd numbered harmonics.

The article incorrectly asserts that a cone speaker is mostly resistive. Thats BS by every electrical principle that I've studied as an electrical engineer. Further more the auther neglects to include the power factor angle into the definition of power.

From his article
"In a capacitor, the impedance is inversely proportional to frequency. So an ESL will have a high impedance at low frequencies (perhaps several hundred), and a very low impedance at high frequencies -- typically around 2 ohms."

The lower frequencies contain way more spectral energy compared to the high frequencies and thats what makes an amp work.

This article is incorrect in so many ways. This is article is nothing but a sloppy slaes job for its amplifiers and I would not put stock into what they are stating.

E-Stat
05-25-2009, 09:02 AM
That is irrelevant to the actual tests done, which did not involve dipole speakers.
I was referring to the 2003 test where they used the "shuffler" with the intent, if not success, of eliminating speaker position as a variable. The shuffler didn't exist for the 1994 test which is why they posted two results for each speaker since there were different outcomes depending upon where those speakers were placed.

rw

E-Stat
05-25-2009, 09:06 AM
Power is the one thing alone that gives the ability to drive highly reactive loads....
Like I said, you do not understand the implications of reactance nor have any experience in the real world with amplifiers driving them.

rw

3db
05-25-2009, 09:15 AM
Like I said, you do not understand the implications of reactance nor have any experience in the real world with amplifiers driving them.

rw

As an electrical engineer, I know a snow job when I see it but if you choose to stick your head in teh sand and believe all that crap that was posted in that article, be my guest.

He's made so many mistakes in that article, its not funny.

E-Stat
05-25-2009, 09:24 AM
As an electrical engineer...
Do tell us about your amplifiers and the real world testing you've conducted. Perhaps you can teach Nelson Pass something since he has specifically designed his amplifiers to work with reactive loads for over thirty years.

Anyone on the internet thinks he's an expert. :)

rw

02audionoob
05-25-2009, 09:30 AM
Not really. Studies have shown that people who are more physically attractive are perceived to be smarter, nicer - better people. The psychology is the same.

rw

I for one am not buying it. It's different. To compare it to how we perceive people would be more like:


Subconsciously perceiving one person to be a better person because they're good-looking
Consciously deciding which of two people is the better-looking one - like a beauty pageant

Ajani
05-25-2009, 09:32 AM
A quick point:

Sighted bias isn't limited to preferring more attractive, blinged out and expensive gear... Since many people prefer more industrial, utilitarian and plain designs...

I've seen many audiophiles automatically assume that if Products X & Y both cost the same, but X looks really fancy, while Y is plain looking, then Y is clearly the better value for money as all the costs have gone to improving sound quality and not cosmetics... That assumption (which is quite popular in audiophile circles) is a sighted bias and is not always true... and some brands have capitalized on audiophiles making that assumption...

I think Blind Testing is a very useful tool for designers (even planar brands, since I'm sure they can design a speaker selector that doesn't mess up dipole sound, if they want to...) and can also be for reviewers... It has little direct relevance to the consumer as we will buy what we like regardless...

3db
05-25-2009, 09:32 AM
Do tell us about your amplifiers and the real world testing you've conducted. Perhaps you can teach Nelson Pass something since he has specifically designed his amplifiers to work with reactive loads for over thirty years.

Anyone on the internet thinks he's an expert. :)

rw

From his article...

"A massive output stage using 18 transistors makes the amplifier extremely rugged and reliable. It will drive the most difficult (low impedance and reactive) loads without strain or damage, which is why it is ideal for driving electrostatic loudspeakers. "

Thats SS in every sense of the word. No tubes here? Where are you gettign that tube amps are better for electrostatic loudspeakers? Furthermore this article is promoting a very high powered amplifier. You've stated that power wasn't the only factor in driving reactive loads. It turns out that I'm correct after all becuase this is exactly what this article is pushing.

Also, from teh desciption, it sounds like this amplifier is a class D or equivalent amp but not your classic classAB or class A amp.

E-Stat
05-25-2009, 11:38 AM
Thats SS in every sense of the word.
A few, yes. My Threshold has 32 outputs. Most SS amps, however, do not. Certainly not pro amps.


No tubes here? Where are you gettign that tube amps are better for electrostatic loudspeakers?
They are voltage amps. I used tube direct drive amps with my Acoustats back in the mid 70s. They drove the 3k stators directly.


You've stated that power wasn't the only factor in driving reactive loads. It turns out that I'm correct after all becuase this is exactly what this article is pushing.
No, that is not the only factor. There are some low powered amps with high current stages that work equally well. Here's a low powered amp that is well suited to reactive loads: First Watt F5 (http://www.firstwatt.com/products/f5.htm) No, you still do not understand the challenge posed by reactive loads. Do some research on the topic. I've had thirty years. You've spent thirty minutes.


Also, from teh desciption, it sounds like this amplifier is a class D or equivalent amp but not your classic classAB or class A amp.
Look again.

rw

Pat D
05-25-2009, 04:15 PM
Olive is dismissive of the issue of speaker positioning in general as well as dipole positioning specifically. Nevertheless this doesn't negate the principle of DBT for evaluating sound preferences/quality.

Harmon International has been building speakers to Floyd Toole formula for quite few years now. Not that that is such a bad thing, for example, the highly reputed Revel line. Not my cup of tea either, though.
I don't think he is "dismissive" of speaker positioning in general. Indeed, one of the main aims of Floyd Toole's work at the NRC and later at Harman was to design room friendly speakers. Using the criteria determined by the research has worked well for many speaker companies such as Paradigm, PSB, Energy, and Ethera. Totem is proud of going their own way, but still, their better speakers in fact do have a basically even FR and wide and even horizontal off-axis dispersion.

Listening window speakers, such as my old Kef 104's can work well but are more difficult to place--ask Paul Barton of PSB, who uses the NRC facilities extensively.

http://stereophile.com/interviews/231/index3.html

The same goes for dipoles, which can be great in proper room with a good set up--ask Siegfried Linkwitz. But I had Quad ESL-63's for a number of years, and they need a lot of space. My current speakers work better in our house and I don't miss the Quads at all--and my wife certainly doesn't!

mlsstl
05-25-2009, 06:28 PM
E-State wrote: "There is a decided bias in Harman's tests using their 'shuffler'."
I don't recall making any claim whatsoever about the level of test perfection with Harman's "shuffler." ;-)

However, that is a good example of the hypercritical goggles we often put on when it comes to evaluating test results. Locate any perceived imperfection in the test procedure and then we can discount any info we don't like.

The simple fact is that all tests developed and conducted by humans are going to have their limitations. The "shuffler" is a device that can still deliver useful information to a researcher or designer. A researcher or designer is interested in the results of a test such as that one. And, if they or others desire, it can prove an excellent springboard with which to continue further research by refining the test or attempting to account for the original test's limitations.

And, while we're on the subject, note that I made no claim that blind test should replace all other types of testing. I specifically said that for certain purposes "blind testing becomes far more important." That still leaves plenty of room for good old fashioned subjective evaluation.


FWIW, I've never been swayed by exotic wood finishes or fancy multi-colored piano finish paints.

This is a classic oversimplification of the wide range of potential psychological biases that can creep into things. Manufacturers can spend hefty sums researching and designing the appearance of a product and even packaging. A good design can influence the way we perceive a product in ways that most of us don't even realize. In fact, if we are not part of the target market, chances are we'll probably scratch our heads and wonder what the heck they were thinking.

While a show-room finish may be attractive to one group of buyers, others may respond to a far more plain-jane approach, or a "technical" look, or industrial and so on. And many smaller boutique manufacturers simply may go with what strikes the owner's fancy or simply what is convenient.

Sometimes we are aware of our bias. Take horn speakers in my case. I've heard lots of them, new and old, over the years and have yet to hear one I'd want for my home system. Yet there are brands I've not heard and their advocates will quickly tell you that their model doesn't suffer from "horn sound." Yet if I knew I was listening to a horn system, my past experience is going to have me on high alert looking for any hint of that defect.

Same thing with metal diaphragm tweeters. In 40 years I've not heard one I've liked so any that are new-to-me start out in a hole.

Those are just the biases I'm aware of. I've little doubt that I have plenty of subconscious influences that are actively at work in far more subtle ways.

For an interesting read on the general subject, check out "A Mind Of Its Own" by Cordelia Fine. Excellent book on the way our brain thinks.

3db
05-26-2009, 03:00 AM
I don't recall making any claim whatsoever about the level of test perfection with Harman's "shuffler." ;-)

However, that is a good example of the hypercritical goggles we often put on when it comes to evaluating test results. Locate any perceived imperfection in the test procedure and then we can discount any info we don't like.

The simple fact is that all tests developed and conducted by humans are going to have their limitations. The "shuffler" is a device that can still deliver useful information to a researcher or designer. A researcher or designer is interested in the results of a test such as that one. And, if they or others desire, it can prove an excellent springboard with which to continue further research by refining the test or attempting to account for the original test's limitations.

And, while we're on the subject, note that I made no claim that blind test should replace all other types of testing. I specifically said that for certain purposes "blind testing becomes far more important." That still leaves plenty of room for good old fashioned subjective evaluation.



This is a classic oversimplification of the wide range of potential psychological biases that can creep into things. Manufacturers can spend hefty sums researching and designing the appearance of a product and even packaging. A good design can influence the way we perceive a product in ways that most of us don't even realize. In fact, if we are not part of the target market, chances are we'll probably scratch our heads and wonder what the heck they were thinking.

While a show-room finish may be attractive to one group of buyers, others may respond to a far more plain-jane approach, or a "technical" look, or industrial and so on. And many smaller boutique manufacturers simply may go with what strikes the owner's fancy or simply what is convenient.

Sometimes we are aware of our bias. Take horn speakers in my case. I've heard lots of them, new and old, over the years and have yet to hear one I'd want for my home system. Yet there are brands I've not heard and their advocates will quickly tell you that their model doesn't suffer from "horn sound." Yet if I knew I was listening to a horn system, my past experience is going to have me on high alert looking for any hint of that defect.

Same thing with metal diaphragm tweeters. In 40 years I've not heard one I've liked so any that are new-to-me start out in a hole.

Those are just the biases I'm aware of. I've little doubt that I have plenty of subconscious influences that are actively at work in far more subtle ways.

For an interesting read on the general subject, check out "A Mind Of Its Own" by Cordelia Fine. Excellent book on the way our brain thinks.

Good reply. Finally one that understands the differences between sighted and blind testing. And even when one is aware of this, its still very hard to work agains the subconciosu biases.

3db
05-26-2009, 03:28 AM
A few, yes. My Threshold has 32 outputs. Most SS amps, however, do not. Certainly not pro amps.


They are voltage amps. I used tube direct drive amps with my Acoustats back in the mid 70s. They drove the 3k stators directly.


No, that is not the only factor. There are some low powered amps with high current stages that work equally well. Here's a low powered amp that is well suited to reactive loads: First Watt F5 (http://www.firstwatt.com/products/f5.htm) No, you still do not understand the challenge posed by reactive loads. Do some research on the topic. I've had thirty years. You've spent thirty minutes.


Look again.

rw

Power doesn't imply voltage only nor did I allude to that. Its a product of both. The best amplifliers are those that are able to supply the current to demanding loads such as your low voltage hi current drive amps that you are suggested.

The article you first referred to me had errors in. Conventional speakers are not mostly resistive. There is the voice coil in the seaker itself, a coil and some capacitors in the filters which gives you an impedance which changes with frequency. Resistive it is not. He incorreclty over simplified that because there are some conventional speakers that have phase angles which are quite large, not as bad as electrostats but bad enough to eliminate them as mostly resistive. So the basic premise of him simply glossing over conventional speakers and lumping them as mostly resistive is wrong by any text book definition of the word.

Your smugness, lack of proffesionalism, and arrogance is most unbecomming for a site moderator. I'm an electrical engineeer and I'm very well aware of reactance. Whats your degree in? Put downs?

Feanor
05-26-2009, 05:42 AM
I don't think he is "dismissive" of speaker positioning in general. Indeed, one of the main aims of Floyd Toole's work at the NRC and later at Harman was to design room friendly speakers. Using the criteria determined by the research has worked well for many speaker companies such as Paradigm, PSB, Energy, and Ethera. Totem is proud of going their own way, but still, their better speakers in fact do have a basically even FR and wide and even horizontal off-axis dispersion.
...

I, for one. didn't mean to disparage the work of Floyd Toole. The principles he proved are still the best guide to "box" speaker design, viz. flat frequency resonse and wide, consistent dispersion from the speaker, and proper reflection control in listening room.

Hyfi
05-26-2009, 06:33 AM
Can you provide any evidence for that assertion?

Sure, come over to my house and let me rotate 2 pairs of speakers each with 87db and 4ohm rating and also rotate a Counterpoint NPS-400 and Oddysey Stratos amp.

The Counterpoint can drive the Clearfields (early Von Schwiekert's) much better than a pair of Dynaudio 82s of same ratings. The Stratos can drive them both without issues.

Then I can blindfold you and switch between the large Clearfields and a pair of Dynaudio 42s. I'm guessing that you would choose the Danes unless you saw the two pair sitting side by side. Then your brain would have told you that the huge floor standers had to sound better than the little tine speakers. I can also rotate a pair of JM Labs Tantal 509s that also sound incredibly big for their size. Same reaction if you saw them first.

Both smaller sets of speakers can be driven with ease by the Counterpoint where both floor standers have a little trouble.

Amp and speaker matching does have it's place. They never told us any specs for the speakers. Could the bookshelves been 89DB and 8ohm where the large ones were 87DB and 4ohm? This is not a credible test to me. Then again, maybe the people in the test did not like deep extended bass, not everyone does. I'm sure many people would prefer the Dynaudio 42 0r 52 over the 82 because they don't like bass but everything else the 82s have is there.

Ajani
05-26-2009, 07:27 AM
To expand upon my earlier post


A quick point:

Sighted bias isn't limited to preferring more attractive, blinged out and expensive gear... Since many people prefer more industrial, utilitarian and plain designs...

I've seen many audiophiles automatically assume that if Products X & Y both cost the same, but X looks really fancy, while Y is plain looking, then Y is clearly the better value for money as all the costs have gone to improving sound quality and not cosmetics... That assumption (which is quite popular in audiophile circles) is a sighted bias and is not always true... and some brands have capitalized on audiophiles making that assumption...

I think Blind Testing is a very useful tool for designers (even planar brands, since I'm sure they can design a speaker selector that doesn't mess up dipole sound, if they want to...) and can also be for reviewers... It has little direct relevance to the consumer as we will buy what we like regardless...

AND


I don't recall making any claim whatsoever about the level of test perfection with Harman's "shuffler." ;-)

However, that is a good example of the hypercritical goggles we often put on when it comes to evaluating test results. Locate any perceived imperfection in the test procedure and then we can discount any info we don't like.

The simple fact is that all tests developed and conducted by humans are going to have their limitations. The "shuffler" is a device that can still deliver useful information to a researcher or designer. A researcher or designer is interested in the results of a test such as that one. And, if they or others desire, it can prove an excellent springboard with which to continue further research by refining the test or attempting to account for the original test's limitations.

And, while we're on the subject, note that I made no claim that blind test should replace all other types of testing. I specifically said that for certain purposes "blind testing becomes far more important." That still leaves plenty of room for good old fashioned subjective evaluation.



This is a classic oversimplification of the wide range of potential psychological biases that can creep into things. Manufacturers can spend hefty sums researching and designing the appearance of a product and even packaging. A good design can influence the way we perceive a product in ways that most of us don't even realize. In fact, if we are not part of the target market, chances are we'll probably scratch our heads and wonder what the heck they were thinking.

While a show-room finish may be attractive to one group of buyers, others may respond to a far more plain-jane approach, or a "technical" look, or industrial and so on. And many smaller boutique manufacturers simply may go with what strikes the owner's fancy or simply what is convenient.

Sometimes we are aware of our bias. Take horn speakers in my case. I've heard lots of them, new and old, over the years and have yet to hear one I'd want for my home system. Yet there are brands I've not heard and their advocates will quickly tell you that their model doesn't suffer from "horn sound." Yet if I knew I was listening to a horn system, my past experience is going to have me on high alert looking for any hint of that defect.

Same thing with metal diaphragm tweeters. In 40 years I've not heard one I've liked so any that are new-to-me start out in a hole.

Those are just the biases I'm aware of. I've little doubt that I have plenty of subconscious influences that are actively at work in far more subtle ways.

For an interesting read on the general subject, check out "A Mind Of Its Own" by Cordelia Fine. Excellent book on the way our brain thinks.

I read an article recently (which I hope to locate and post soon) that addressed reasons/misconceptions why audiophiles are opposed to blind testing:

1) The idea that blind testing shows that all amps sound the same - it does not... If you read articles from mags like The Audio Critic, you'll see these claims... but you'll also see some serious disclaimers as well: Amps must be level matched (OK, that's fine). Amps must perform within their power limit (so speakers must be sensitive enough to suit both the flea watt and mega watt amps - which is not the case in all hifi setups, but is fairly reasonable for the purpose of the test). Amps must have the same technical measurements (Say what? That one is the kicker for me, since once you read enough review measurements, you realize that most amps don't measure the same). So basically if amps measure the same, are used within the their power range and are level matched, then they will sound the same... I don't have much trouble believing that... but that is a VERY different assertion than ALL amps sound the same... What can be debated is whether all amps should measure the same....

Note: the Carver Challenge is an interesting read, that I see as being related to amps measuring the same and sounding the same:

http://www.stereophile.com/features/the_carver_challenge/

2) FEAR - Not just fear from a few fraudsters that their Golden Ears won't hold up under real scrutiny (I'm sure many audiophiles can actually hear the differences they say they do), but fear of change and results not being what they intuitively expect... So often we see audiophiles coming up with lots of reasons to invalidate the results of a specific blind test, rather than looking for ways to improve the blind testing and applying it...

3) As I addressed in my original post, some audiophiles think they have no sighted bias simply because they have bland or ugly gear... It may just mean that they automatically assume that the 'blingy' looking gear is just eye candy and not serious HiFi (much like the bias in assuming that a pretty blond girl is dumb)... A brand that made a rep on plain/boring/ugly gear was NAD: All their gear used to have cheap plastic front panels and battleship grey paint... Plastic is cheaper than metal, so clearly that can be seen as a cost saving mechanism (presumably value to the consumer)... But the dull gray paint? Why not just Black or Silver like 90% of HiFi? Is dull grey paint cheaper than black or silver? My guess is that the grey is very distinctive, without looking like an attempt to be stylish... The dull paint job and plastic finish gave the impression that the products were all business.. not a cent wasted on cosmetics...

E-Stat
05-26-2009, 07:31 AM
Power doesn't imply voltage only nor did I allude to that.
What you said was that a powerful SS amp would work. Some do, some do not depending upon their ability to drive reactive loads. My thirty years of using electrostatic speakers has found many that do not work well. What is your opinion based upon?


The article you first referred to me had errors in.
Since you were unfamiliar with the concept of reactance, I thought that would be a start for you. I will repeat my suggestion that you do some more research on your own if you really wish to understand the challenge.


Conventional speakers are not mostly resistive.
That depends upon your perspective. Since electrostats are essentially capacitors, they are indeed very different from dynamic drivers which are primarily resistive.


Your smugness, lack of proffesionalism (sic)...
I retired my mod duties. You never answered my question as to how many amplifiers YOU HAVE experimented with on electrostatic speakers. You never answered my question as to how many amplifiers you have designed. College textbook answers frequently differ from the real world as experienced by engineers who actually work in this field.

rw

E-Stat
05-26-2009, 07:52 AM
Note: the Carver Challenge is an interesting read, that I see as being related to amps measuring the same and sounding the same:
What I find to be a more interesting read is Carver's comments in the August 2008 TAS about his challenge. :)

"I should have said, I can make my amplifier sound close...

Well, I have a secret. I cheated. I practiced a lot before I started! There's a lot going on behind the curtain."

rw

Feanor
05-26-2009, 08:46 AM
...

I read an article recently (which I hope to locate and post soon) that addressed reasons/misconceptions why audiophiles are opposed to blind testing:

1) The idea that blind testing shows that all amps sound the same - it does not... If you read articles from mags like The Audio Critic, you'll see these claims... but you'll also see some serious disclaimers as well: Amps must be level matched (OK, that's fine). Amps must perform within their power limit (so speakers must be sensitive enough to suit both the flea watt and mega watt amps - which is not the case in all hifi setups, but is fairly reasonable for the purpose of the test). Amps must have the same technical measurements (Say what? That one is the kicker for me, since once you read enough review measurements, you realize that most amps don't measure the same). ....
...

There as the classic amplfier DBT performed by David Clark and reported by Ian Masters (http://www.soundstageav.com/mastersonaudio.html) in Stereo Review in 1987. The title was, "Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?" (http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf).

And the the usual conclusion attributed to the article is that they do. And yet when you read the article in full it was clear that at least some participants could -- in fact -- reliably distinguish difference between at least some of the ampliers.

GMichael
05-26-2009, 08:50 AM
I have been enjoying reading through this thread. I can understand much of the technical jargon, but get lost when some of you mention this person's or that person's work or writings. All of you obviously have much more experience than I do with amp & speaker brands and types of sounds.
I do have one question that I haven't seen asked yet. What if after choosing an amp and speakers based on a BLT, I get them home and now get to see them? What if, for instance, I picked horn loaded speakers, not knowing so, then once home, I see that they are, and now start picking out all that I've never liked about horns and no longer enjoy them? Would I re-evaluate my thinking, or would I want to trade my system in? Wouldn't it be better to choose my system in the same way in which I'll be using it? That is, with my eyes open.

E-Stat
05-26-2009, 08:58 AM
I don't recall making any claim whatsoever about the level of test perfection with Harman's "shuffler." ;-)
I was agreeing with your comment about audiophiles being "human". So are researchers! :)


However, that is a good example of the hypercritical goggles we often put on when it comes to evaluating test results.
They should have left their comparison to equivalent types of speakers. Put a K-Horn on a platform away from the wall and you will likewise not get fair results.


This is a classic oversimplification of the wide range of potential psychological biases that can creep into things. Manufacturers can spend hefty sums researching and designing the appearance of a product and even packaging. A good design can influence the way we perceive a product in ways that most of us don't even realize.
I find usability critical in many of my purchases. GM vehicles, for example have too long a stride on their seats for my short legs. That exerts pressure in the back of my legs. I immediately rule them out for purchase and avoid them for rentals.


For an interesting read on the general subject, check out "A Mind Of Its Own" by Cordelia Fine. Excellent book on the way our brain thinks.
Thanks for the suggestion.

rw

Hyfi
05-26-2009, 09:30 AM
That is, with my eyes open.

Yes and if you auditioned enough pairs of speakers, you may find a non-horn speaker that sounds similar.....but with a different amp.

Also, there is a size and location limit to what you buy so for a room that only can handle a small pair on stands, you would not even audition blind or otherwise speakers that would not fit in your room.

You obviously would not want to place these:

http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2007/09/20/ferguson-hill-fh001_48.jpg

in a room that would only allow for these:

http://www.shine7.com/audio/AAD7001_front2.jpg

RGA
05-26-2009, 03:54 PM
SS vs tube is a personal taste thing and their is no right nor wrong. The lieks of Anthem, Bryston, SImAudio whicgh are SS amps are not low resolving amps by a long shot. I don't think their is a seperates amp out there that you can classify as low resolviong. Do a spectal analysis on the input signal and teh output signal and the only thing one should see is a difference in ampitude.

Actually if you buy into DBT's the "right" is tubes - the only DBT that could possibly worth a damn is the preference based ones. Tubes show up in DB tests and they are chosen over SS amps - maybe there is a reason like umm they sound more like the real thing perhaps. And Colloms found that even the top SS manufacturers prefered an older cheaper (in some cases FAR FAR cheaper tube amp. I thought that would be a good thing for the DBT lovers - the cheaper component chosen by the expensive SS engineers.

The measurements are irrelevant the ear is a far better instrument because unlike any and all measurements - it is connected to the brain which interprets the information it gets from the ears - that interface is the only I repeat for the sheep who don't listen but read - is the ONLY thing that matters.

RGA
05-26-2009, 11:26 PM
MLSSTL and 3db

MLSSTL - you raise a good point about bias especially with your horn and metal tweeter example. That you know going in that you may not like either speaker based off past experiences.

So the assumption and the only value a blind test will or could do for you is to what exactly? You could sit in a blind test and at the end of it prefer the horn or the speaker using a metal tweeter - what does that mean? Now you past experiences are completely invalid because you what hated horns and metal tweeters because of some bias?

Well in theory this might be a good thing and 'teaches" you that you hated horns and metal tweeters unfairly. But what if the next day you listened to the horn speaker "back to the normal sighted way you always listen" and find that yup they annoy the hell out of you. Even though the blind experiment tells you that nope the horn/metal speaker was not that bad - once sighted you hate them again. Now what do you propose to do? Do you buy the horn/metal speaker on principle that based on the blind test it sounds good.

You pay your money bring them home and after owning them six months and having them annoy you every second of every day to the point where you never turn the irritating things on you decide to do what? You can go on a forum and tell people that hey in a blind test the horn is better so it IS better. Or you can actually listen to something that sounds good in a normal "valid" environment despite the blind test.

The DBT was invented by the medical profession to rule out factors that interfere with possible outcomes - it's not perfect even in the medical field because in virtually every case there is a patient/answer element and a degree of honesty (especially the food/diet/cholesterol/exercise grouping). In the field of psychology it is not perfect either because setting up the test to be "valid" in the way in which the subject requires is a tough task.

The DBT is highly effective at knocking down "claims" made by people claiming outrageous things. But the test needs to be specific to the claim made. The guy who says he can tell all cable differences in any system anytime anywhere 100% of the time - a DBT will quickly reveal that individual as incapable of passing his claims.

It is important to understand that these tests have been grafted onto the field of audio by engineers who are not trained in the field of psychology. I bring it up all the time because I am 100% correct on this matter. For any test in any field to be useful it must be a test that perfectly 100% perfectly mirror images that for which has been studied. A perfect DBT would have one trial of one question - the whole reason we have trials is to, in our feeble hopes, to generate enough questions to root out the anomolies from the test. This is why they have statistical significance calculated to .05.

The idea has been to sit someone in a chair and have them force guess/select an impulse. Engineers through ignorance laziness stupidity or an agenda have not studied brain interaction in a stress environment. All tests are a stress environment and none of the ones proposed by anyone on forums that I have read understand the subject.

But to put it really simply - fellow teachers or psychologists - on the board might know as well - that there are two halves of the brain - each side "typically" reacts and works to different purposes. One side is often said to be the analytical mathematical side of the brain responsible for decision making (we generally call this the dominant side) or to use a Star Trek analogy - the Vulcan side of the brain. The other side - yup you guessed it is the artistic music painting relaxing side of the brain (the emotional side). When we listen to music - the emotional side is used and a pseudo intellectual element is also used. In a test environment the Vulcan side is always used. You are now putting someone under test - the "other side" the vulcan side is now used to evaluate the listening experience and to answer A or B. This is not the same environment whether you give them 5 minutes or 5 hours. I do not have time to go in depth with this answer but the research is there in psychology and it's not that difficult to find - it applies to a lot of other areas as well but suffice it to say the test environment has serious problems that directly impact validity - the DBT needs validity not just reliability - the people on forums blather on endlessly about "look at all the tests that show X result - high reliability but if the test itself has low validity - which they all clearly do then all you have is overwhelming statistics of something in a bubble not directly related to real world experience.

And even if we do take the DBT on the face then high trials reduce certain errors - obviously more trials increases the chance for high reliability which means that you can be more confident in the results (statistically) that you get. You can not ever pool the results. In other words if all three of us take a DBT and I get 9/10 and 3db gets 3/10 and MLSSTL gets 4/10 we do not conclude that the score is 16/30 and therefore no one could hear a difference. This happens a LOT - the Oakland University DBT switrchbox sight does exactly that - it's horrible science on so many levels.

But even if we do it somewhat properly let's understand that more trials reduces error. If I score 6/10 on a DBT then this is considered a "failure to tell differences beyond chance" and therefore the conclusion is that A and B are the same - opr sound the same or are indistinguishable to my ear - and most Prop DBT pundits will say therefore that no one has ever heard the difference therefore don't waste your money.

What they left out was that if the subject scores 6/10 ten times with a miss for a combined 59/100 they have actually PASSED the test - this 59/100 high trial more reliable test has met significance to the .05 level and equals a score of 9/10. Think about that. If you score 9/10 and pass the test the tester(who is almost certainly a pro dbt anti-cable anti-amplifier - anti cd player etc tester (no one else would be doing such tests) would immediately call it a fluke and then demand a SECOND test to be SURE that it was no a fluke because of the low number of trials. Would he do that if you scored 6/10 - would he call it a fluke? Does he even understand the statistics he is dealing with? You can bet he will happily call it a fail because that is the point he is trying to prove at the outset. The last thing he wants is to do real work and get a 59/100 that shows in fact that listener passed with flying colours. And why? Because a score of 59/100 does not "look" as good does it. It looks like a fail or a barely passing grade doesn't it. But nope 6/10 ten times with a miss of 1 59/100 is the same statisitically significant score as 9/10 - in fact it is better because it has far higher reliability.

So what have we learned
1) the tests are pretty invalid to telling us anything truly accurate but it tells us how the non music side of peopl'e brain work and how they handle stress.
2) that the people running these don't understand the statistics they're using in their own problematic invalid tests.

Lastly - this does not mean to suggest you "trust" sighted evaluations or that "sighted evaluations are "better" than problematic DBT's - not at all - but you live with the latter not the former - so you should not chuck them completely out based of problematic tests.

3db
05-27-2009, 03:06 AM
Actually if you buy into DBT's the "right" is tubes - the only DBT that could possibly worth a damn is the preference based ones. Tubes show up in DB tests and they are chosen over SS amps - maybe there is a reason like umm they sound more like the real thing perhaps. And Colloms found that even the top SS manufacturers prefered an older cheaper (in some cases FAR FAR cheaper tube amp. I thought that would be a good thing for the DBT lovers - the cheaper component chosen by the expensive SS engineers.

The measurements are irrelevant the ear is a far better instrument because unlike any and all measurements - it is connected to the brain which interprets the information it gets from the ears - that interface is the only I repeat for the sheep who don't listen but read - is the ONLY thing that matters.

Don't push your personal tastes as the audiophile guidleline. To you tubes sound better than SS and that I can accept but its not like that for everyone else. Tubes by their nature are richer in even order harmonics which makes it sound better to most but its not a faithful reproduction of the signal. These even order harmonics are added into the signal.

Secondaly ears are very personal and only you hear what you hear. I can't hear what your hearing. If I like the sound of a SS amp over a tube amp, its not becuase of the measurements and it doesn't make me wrong and you right. Just stop with the broad sweeping generalizations you make. Audio is subjective at best and you trying to lord your opinions on everyone else isn;t going to make it right.

3db
05-27-2009, 03:12 AM
What you said was that a powerful SS amp would work. Some do, some do not depending upon their ability to drive reactive loads. My thirty years of using electrostatic speakers has found many that do not work well. What is your opinion based upon?


Since you were unfamiliar with the concept of reactance, I thought that would be a start for you. I will repeat my suggestion that you do some more research on your own if you really wish to understand the challenge.


That depends upon your perspective. Since electrostats are essentially capacitors, they are indeed very different from dynamic drivers which are primarily resistive.


I retired my mod duties. You never answered my question as to how many amplifiers YOU HAVE experimented with on electrostatic speakers. You never answered my question as to how many amplifiers you have designed. College textbook answers frequently differ from the real world as experienced by engineers who actually work in this field.

rw

I have studied reactive components and have used motors in series with circuits to bring the power factor back to a value of 1. Unlike you who have found it emperically, I've studied the effects of reactance and very well versed in the principles of impedance.

Whats your degree in?

3db
05-27-2009, 03:31 AM
MLSSTL and 3db

MLSSTL - you raise a good point about bias especially with your horn and metal tweeter example. That you know going in that you may not like either speaker based off past experiences.

So the assumption and the only value a blind test will or could do for you is to what exactly? You could sit in a blind test and at the end of it prefer the horn or the speaker using a metal tweeter - what does that mean? Now you past experiences are completely invalid because you what hated horns and metal tweeters because of some bias?

Well in theory this might be a good thing and 'teaches" you that you hated horns and metal tweeters unfairly. But what if the next day you listened to the horn speaker "back to the normal sighted way you always listen" and find that yup they annoy the hell out of you. Even though the blind experiment tells you that nope the horn/metal speaker was not that bad - once sighted you hate them again. Now what do you propose to do? Do you buy the horn/metal speaker on principle that based on the blind test it sounds good.

You pay your money bring them home and after owning them six months and having them annoy you every second of every day to the point where you never turn the irritating things on you decide to do what? You can go on a forum and tell people that hey in a blind test the horn is better so it IS better. Or you can actually listen to something that sounds good in a normal "valid" environment despite the blind test.

The DBT was invented by the medical profession to rule out factors that interfere with possible outcomes - it's not perfect even in the medical field because in virtually every case there is a patient/answer element and a degree of honesty (especially the food/diet/cholesterol/exercise grouping). In the field of psychology it is not perfect either because setting up the test to be "valid" in the way in which the subject requires is a tough task.

The DBT is highly effective at knocking down "claims" made by people claiming outrageous things. But the test needs to be specific to the claim made. The guy who says he can tell all cable differences in any system anytime anywhere 100% of the time - a DBT will quickly reveal that individual as incapable of passing his claims.

It is important to understand that these tests have been grafted onto the field of audio by engineers who are not trained in the field of psychology. I bring it up all the time because I am 100% correct on this matter. For any test in any field to be useful it must be a test that perfectly 100% perfectly mirror images that for which has been studied. A perfect DBT would have one trial of one question - the whole reason we have trials is to, in our feeble hopes, to generate enough questions to root out the anomolies from the test. This is why they have statistical significance calculated to .05.

The idea has been to sit someone in a chair and have them force guess/select an impulse. Engineers through ignorance laziness stupidity or an agenda have not studied brain interaction in a stress environment. All tests are a stress environment and none of the ones proposed by anyone on forums that I have read understand the subject.

But to put it really simply - fellow teachers or psychologists - on the board might know as well - that there are two halves of the brain - each side "typically" reacts and works to different purposes. One side is often said to be the analytical mathematical side of the brain responsible for decision making (we generally call this the dominant side) or to use a Star Trek analogy - the Vulcan side of the brain. The other side - yup you guessed it is the artistic music painting relaxing side of the brain (the emotional side). When we listen to music - the emotional side is used and a pseudo intellectual element is also used. In a test environment the Vulcan side is always used. You are now putting someone under test - the "other side" the vulcan side is now used to evaluate the listening experience and to answer A or B. This is not the same environment whether you give them 5 minutes or 5 hours. I do not have time to go in depth with this answer but the research is there in psychology and it's not that difficult to find - it applies to a lot of other areas as well but suffice it to say the test environment has serious problems that directly impact validity - the DBT needs validity not just reliability - the people on forums blather on endlessly about "look at all the tests that show X result - high reliability but if the test itself has low validity - which they all clearly do then all you have is overwhelming statistics of something in a bubble not directly related to real world experience.

And even if we do take the DBT on the face then high trials reduce certain errors - obviously more trials increases the chance for high reliability which means that you can be more confident in the results (statistically) that you get. You can not ever pool the results. In other words if all three of us take a DBT and I get 9/10 and 3db gets 3/10 and MLSSTL gets 4/10 we do not conclude that the score is 16/30 and therefore no one could hear a difference. This happens a LOT - the Oakland University DBT switrchbox sight does exactly that - it's horrible science on so many levels.

But even if we do it somewhat properly let's understand that more trials reduces error. If I score 6/10 on a DBT then this is considered a "failure to tell differences beyond chance" and therefore the conclusion is that A and B are the same - opr sound the same or are indistinguishable to my ear - and most Prop DBT pundits will say therefore that no one has ever heard the difference therefore don't waste your money.

What they left out was that if the subject scores 6/10 ten times with a miss for a combined 59/100 they have actually PASSED the test - this 59/100 high trial more reliable test has met significance to the .05 level and equals a score of 9/10. Think about that. If you score 9/10 and pass the test the tester(who is almost certainly a pro dbt anti-cable anti-amplifier - anti cd player etc tester (no one else would be doing such tests) would immediately call it a fluke and then demand a SECOND test to be SURE that it was no a fluke because of the low number of trials. Would he do that if you scored 6/10 - would he call it a fluke? Does he even understand the statistics he is dealing with? You can bet he will happily call it a fail because that is the point he is trying to prove at the outset. The last thing he wants is to do real work and get a 59/100 that shows in fact that listener passed with flying colours. And why? Because a score of 59/100 does not "look" as good does it. It looks like a fail or a barely passing grade doesn't it. But nope 6/10 ten times with a miss of 1 59/100 is the same statisitically significant score as 9/10 - in fact it is better because it has far higher reliability.

So what have we learned
1) the tests are pretty invalid to telling us anything truly accurate but it tells us how the non music side of peopl'e brain work and how they handle stress.
2) that the people running these don't understand the statistics they're using in their own problematic invalid tests.

Lastly - this does not mean to suggest you "trust" sighted evaluations or that "sighted evaluations are "better" than problematic DBT's - not at all - but you live with the latter not the former - so you should not chuck them completely out based of problematic tests.


Flloyd Toole doesn't understand the psychological effects? Really now? Interesting.

I would not persoanlly buy speakers thru a DBT test becasue I too like to look at the speakers. I think speakers are a bad subject to a DBT test on because its so subjective.

However, these outrageous claims made by audiophools about cables and interconnects is a different story and the perfect subject for a DBT test. So are CD players, and SS state amps.

The article pointed out how much opinions swayed between sighted and nonsighted tests and this cannot be disputed argued, invalidated by any mumble jumble. Its there. Same group of test subjcts, same thing being tested, one blind, one sighted and the results are staggeringly different. This is unrefutable. The test wasn't abnouit which speaker was the best.. It was about how things changed when people were allowed to see. Left brain right brain... its irrelevant. We continoulsy judge things sub consciously and sight by far is our most powerful and most relied on sense. This would explain why the differences between sighted/unsighted test results exist.

RGA
05-27-2009, 03:32 AM
All of the blind tests have said that people in general prefer tube amps - including the guys who build some of the best solid state amplifiers. I don't put all my eggs in blind test baskets however - I just find it interesting that every DBTer on every forum I run into owns SS amplfiers even though their precious tests indicate that tubes are in fact more desirable by the professionals.

And arguably the best recording studio for classical music is Chesky Records - they record and master with tube amplifcation and their Mastering engineer helped demo a room of tube gear.

Of course you and anyone else can prefer tubes or solid state - in fact it is not tubes that Colloms was making the point about - I like some SS amps over tubes - lots of crappy tube amps - I think the degree of tube gear varies far more widely than does SS and that hurts tube amp reputation in some respects. I don't cary for the CARY amps I've heard despite the prices and reputation - I do like Grant Fidelity and Antique Sound Labs at lower price points - less thrilled with Vuum, and Jolida.

Most SS tends to sound pretty much the same - kind of like McDonalds - there are subtle difference between outlets but generally it's the same Big Mac whether you're in Florida or South Korea.

The blind session I posted had more to do with negative feedback - and ESTAT posted one SS company (Pass) that believes in no negative feedback class A design - and Sugden's A21a is a Solid State Single Ended Topology (SET). The a21a has been selling since 1968 and it is imo the best sounding SS amplifier for relatively sane money.

As for foisting my opinion - well I think my opinion is right - I think there is a subjective elemant but people do hear things very similarly - just like we see things similarly - the human animal still follows a blue-print. Preference is a big factor of course we can both hear rap music and one of us could love it and the other could hate it with a passion. So yes my opinion is right for me as is yours for you.

Most people under 40 started with SS - they go to tubes they don't go back. There is a huge misconception started by people who heard 50 year old tube amps and their soft mushy billowy sound and lumpy bass and veiled sound and then heard the clear crisp tight SS and then go around on forums and say stupid ass things like "put a resister in the cable and it will sound like a tube amp" as if all tube amps sound like 50 year old washed out distortion generators. Who knows maybe they can equal that sound.

But Chesky Records chose tube amplfiers because they chose "good" ones not 50 year old Pieces of junk.

A good tube amp directly compared to Bryston spearates systems - the tube amp had deeper bass, more pressure of instruments - real decay, faster cleaner tighter attack, far far better transients - no noise, no hums, no groans, no hisses. Granted there are "tubey" tube amps that some people like - I don't. What I don't like is having to sit through an incredibly fatiguing fake experience and then for some clown on an internet forum tell me that what I just heard was "technically" more accurate because it has less frequency response deviation with impedence. It's non-thinking idiocy from narrow minded sheep who never bother to actually test their claims.

RGA
05-27-2009, 03:42 AM
Flloyd Toole doesn't understand the psychological effects? Really now? Interesting.

I would not persoanlly buy speakers thru a DBT test becasue I too like to look at the speakers. I think speakers are a bad subject to a DBT test on because its so subjective.

However, these outrageous claims made by audiophools about cables and interconnects is a different story and the perfect subject for a DBT test. So are CD players, and SS state amps.

The article pointed out how much opinions swayed between sighted and nonsighted tests and this cannot be disputed argued, invalidated by any mumble jumble. Its there. Same group of test subjcts, same thing being tested, one blind, one sighted and the results are staggeringly different. This is unrefutable. The test wasn't abnouit which speaker was the best.. It was about how things changed when people were allowed to see. Left brain right brain... its irrelevant. We continoulsy judge things sub consciously and sight by far is our most powerful and most relied on sense. This would explain why the differences between sighted/unsighted test results exist.

Ahh you want it both ways.

You want the test when it backs up your belief that things don't sound the same - you believe all cd players cables and ss amps sound the same and because people fail a test (which is arguable in the first place for many reasons starting with statistical innacuracy and sheer hoplesslessness of the people conducting the tests) and then when the tests indicate that people prefer Tube amps in general - including some of the most prestigious Recording engineers, and electronics engineers designing the best SS stuff - well you want to chuck out the DBT and say = well it's just preference and you should not do a DBT.

What you call mumble jumble isn't. It's hard science proven by brain scans and decades worth of psychological and education field testing of the "tests" effects on subjects.

What Floyd Toole knows or does not know is irrelevant since he has been bought and paid for by a billiondollar company who profits on selling loudspeakers - the science is marketing - it is not independant research - they have a financial stake in selling the most product with the highest margin - not the best product with the lowest margin.

mlsstl
05-27-2009, 03:59 AM
RGA wrote: "So the assumption and the only value a blind test will or could do for you is to what exactly? "
The opening sentence of my first post on the subject in this thread was: "The answer to the issue of blind testing heavily depends on who is doing the test and for what purpose."

I then drew a clear distinction between people who are buying a home system for their own listening pleasure and a researcher who is doing fundamental research or a designer looking for the best design "unencumbered by a hodge-podge of psychological factors."

Also, while the blind test is widely used in the medical world, it was not "invented" for that purpose. Blind testing is a basic part of the scientific method and is widely used in all types of science research where personal biases could sway the tests. It has even been used in nuclear and particle physics since individual researchers can have preexisting expectations as to what they "should find" in certain experiments. (Hmmm, now that sounds familiar....)

I will note that I am hesitant to attach much importance to the "stress" factor in blind testing. That strikes me far more as an excuse than a truly valid consideration. I would argue that under sighted tests, the well proven psychological factor of peer pressure (the "you hear that, don't you?" factor) has an equally, and probably more, powerful warping effect on the results.

In fact that example is a good illustration of how we can blithely ignore a proven defect of sighted testing (peer pressure) when it gives results we like, but turn up the magnification on hypercritical examination (the "stress" of testing) when we don't get results we like.

And, also as noted, I never suggested that blind testing was a replacement for other types of listening under any of the circumstances, whether a purchase for the home or design work. I'm fully aware that no testing situation designed by humans can give 100% certainty about anything. The inability to obtain unquestioned, perfect confidence in the results should not be an excuse to not do something that can give useful information.

As for me - an old dog - learning new tricks, I'd like to think over the years that my mind has been changed from time to time as I've been exposed to new ideas. ;-)

E-Stat
05-27-2009, 10:06 AM
I have studied reactive components and have used motors in series with circuits to bring the power factor back to a value of 1.
Motors? How do they sound driving electrostats?


Unlike you who have found it emperically (sic), I've studied the effects of reactance and very well versed in the principles of impedance.
Using motors.


Whats your degree in?
IT. Thanks for finally answering my question.

rw

Hyfi
05-27-2009, 12:13 PM
Most people under 40 started with SS - they go to tubes they don't go back. There is a huge misconception started by people who heard 50 year old tube amps and their soft mushy billowy sound and lumpy bass and veiled sound and then heard the clear crisp tight SS and then go around on forums and say stupid ass things like "put a resister in the cable and it will sound like a tube amp" as if all tube amps sound like 50 year old washed out distortion generators. Who knows maybe they can equal that sound.

But Chesky Records chose tube amplfiers because they chose "good" ones not 50 year old Pieces of junk.

A good tube amp directly compared to Bryston spearates systems - the tube amp had deeper bass, more pressure of instruments - real decay, faster cleaner tighter attack, far far better transients - no noise, no hums, no groans, no hisses. Granted there are "tubey" tube amps that some people like - I don't. What I don't like is having to sit through an incredibly fatiguing fake experience and then for some clown on an internet forum tell me that what I just heard was "technically" more accurate because it has less frequency response deviation with impedence. It's non-thinking idiocy from narrow minded sheep who never bother to actually test their claims.

Interesting observations. I am now closer to 50 and always liked tube amps but until recently only had tube pre amps coupled with SS amps. I do like that combo alot. I recently got what one would consider a decent tube amp, actually a hybrid Counterpoint NPS-400 which I just had serviced and re-tubed. My testing of sound utilizes two completely different speakers that have the same ratings of 4ohm and 87db. (Dynaudio 82 and Clearfield Continentals by Von Schweikert) The Counterpoint can't supply deep bass to either pair of speakers while the SS can shake the pictures off the walls with the same recordings and volume.

I've been told that the Counterpoint should be coupled with better speaker efficiency. But, that goes hand in hand with my earlier arguments about not every speaker sounding it's best with the same amp. The Counterpoint does deliver very nice sounding bass, correct tone and the length of notes you would expect and get used to playing bass, just no real low end extension.

Right now I am liking both SS and Tubes for different reasons. Since the Stratos runs dead cool, I will use it as my summer amp while you could warm your dinner on the Counterpoint, that will be my winter amp. It is nice to be able to roll equipment to keep from getting bored with one sound.

Now, with my smaller two pairs of speakers, Dynaudio 42s and JM Labs Tantal 509s, the Counterpoint brings out the best they have to offer including all the bass that can be expected from the small size of them.

I'm not sure what statistics you base the statement about going to tubes and never going back but it could be for a number of reasons.

1- Wife can't stand loud music and tube amps sound beautiful at low levels.
2- Your hearing is shot from years of loud SS amps and you think the tubes sound better or less fatiguing.
3- You now have more disposable money and can afford a decent tube amp where before you were 40 you could only afford a decent SS amp.
4- You just never understood what the rave about tube amps was about
5- you grew up listening to MP3s and never realized you were not hearing all the music so when you heard a tube amp and the complete notes, you thought it sounded off.

I'm sure I could go on and on but you get the idea. The best way to describe a Tube amp to SS is by using the sound difference of an Album as compared to a CD where all the notes are square and chopped off while the notes from a tube amp appear longer and more accurate. I swear that the music I was used to listening to on my SS amp is slower with the tube amp due to all the notes being longer but a 4 minute song is still 4 minutes on both systems.

E-Stat
05-27-2009, 01:25 PM
The Counterpoint can't supply deep bass to either pair of speakers while the SS can shake the pictures off the walls with the same recordings and volume.
Tube amps are posed with a bit of a challenge when driving conventional magnetic speakers. The amp's high source impedance (low damping factor) does not have the same level of control to address the back EMF from the magnets. In my case, that is a non-issue with electrostats. Since they are essentially voltage driven devices and have no magnetic motors or EMF to address, bass extension and control are not compromised. On the other hand, stats offer a punishing load that requires a strong output section and power supply. My VTLs have 16 outputs and a 500 joule power supply.


4- You just never understood what the rave about tube amps was about
Bingo! While I've heard excellent tube amps going back to the 70s with the Audio Research D-76, I never really *got* what they do best - the midrange. Partly because I listened more to rock music back then. I was more focused on low end punch and top end extension at the time which was better served by a Threshold Stasis (which was designed specifically to drive one of the founder's Dayton-Wrights and worked great with my Acoustats). For thirty years, HP of The Absolute Sound has been saying that it is all about getting the midrange right. Even after briefly hearing the IRS driven by a C-J Premier One in his environment back in '80 and '83, I still didn't full understand the difference. It took many more years and more listening to fully grasp the difference. It is about their ability to more accurately convey the harmonics of voice, piano, strings, brass. etc.

I'll differ a bit on the analog vs. digital thing. While I am a child of analog and have a decent vinyl rig, Redbook CDs are capable of wonderful midrange clarity. Their Achilles' Heel is top end extension although modern mastering at 24/192 and digital filtering has helped.

rw

JoeE SP9
05-27-2009, 01:31 PM
E-Stat:
I totally agree. Tubes and Electrostatics, a marriage made in heaven. ESL's on tubes get the midrange right. That's why I switched to them in the early 80's. That sometimes harsh high end from CD's is something else we agree on.

3db
05-28-2009, 03:08 AM
Ahh you want it both ways.

You want the test when it backs up your belief that things don't sound the same - you believe all cd players cables and ss amps sound the same and because people fail a test (which is arguable in the first place for many reasons starting with statistical innacuracy and sheer hoplesslessness of the people conducting the tests) and then when the tests indicate that people prefer Tube amps in general - including some of the most prestigious Recording engineers, and electronics engineers designing the best SS stuff - well you want to chuck out the DBT and say = well it's just preference and you should not do a DBT. /QUOTE]

Your very good at not listening and putting words in others people's mouthes aren't you.
I never said nor did I imply "well it's just preference and you should not do a DBT" Stop pulling things out of your arse and try to understand what teh person is saying without going on the defensive.

I just said it was interesting how the test data changed when the test subjetcs were allowed to see. There wasn't alot of statistic funny math going on in that test. You yourself that alll SS amps sounded generic with weak bass blah blah blah. I also believe that all cables sound the same based on physics, theory of signal propogation through cables etc. What people perceive as real differences with cables is just the placebo effect.




[QUOTE=RGA]What Floyd Toole knows or does not know is irrelevant since he has been bought and paid for by a billiondollar company who profits on selling loudspeakers - the science is marketing - it is not independant research - they have a financial stake in selling the most product with the highest margin - not the best product with the lowest margin.

Your arrogance knows no bounds RGA. Floyd Toole's pioneering work is the basis for speaker designers and his work has influenced the audio industry, not just one company.

3db
05-28-2009, 03:26 AM
Most SS tends to sound pretty much the same - kind of like McDonalds - there are subtle difference between outlets but generally it's the same Big Mac whether you're in Florida or South Korea. .

Why on earth would you do a DBT test between SS and tube amps? They are 2 different beasts and the heavy generation of even order harmonics generated by tube amplifiers changes the sound. I would rather see it used between SS or between tube amps but not mixed. The DBT test mentioned here used the same speakers and they just noted how the test results changed with sight. Two simple tests were done. And if you want to argue this silly mathcing of amps, cables and speakers BS, well that was taken care of already. Here's the system, the bench mark like it or not. The only thing that was changed was the blind fold. So a reference was set wether it was matched to audiophool's tastes or not is irrelevant.

The blind session I posted had more to do with negative feedback - and ESTAT posted one SS company (Pass) that believes in no negative feedback class A design - and Sugden's A21a is a Solid State Single Ended Topology (SET). The a21a has been selling since 1968 and it is imo the best sounding SS amplifier for relatively sane money.




Most people under 40 started with SS - they go to tubes they don't go back. There is a huge misconception started by people who heard 50 year old tube amps and their soft mushy billowy sound and lumpy bass and veiled sound and then heard the clear crisp tight SS and then go around on forums and say stupid ass things like "put a resister in the cable and it will sound like a tube amp" as if all tube amps sound like 50 year old washed out distortion generators. Who knows maybe they can equal that sound.

But Chesky Records chose tube amplfiers because they chose "good" ones not 50 year old Pieces of junk.

A good tube amp directly compared to Bryston spearates systems - the tube amp had deeper bass, more pressure of instruments - real decay, faster cleaner tighter attack, far far better transients - no noise, no hums, no groans, no hisses. Granted there are "tubey" tube amps that some people like - I don't. What I don't like is having to sit through an incredibly fatiguing fake experience and then for some clown on an internet forum tell me that what I just heard was "technically" more accurate because it has less frequency response deviation with impedence. It's non-thinking idiocy from narrow minded sheep who never bother to actually test their claims.

Please back up these last claims or is this your perception?

3db
05-28-2009, 03:32 AM
Motors? How do they sound driving electrostats?


Using motors.


IT. Thanks for finally answering my question.

rw

I'm also in IT and I can't where an IT person would care about impedancee and electrical principles, signal propagation theorey, amplfier design, semiconductor maetrials even come into play when everything is rolled out of a box. I have studied all of that and more so please don't spout your unqualified opinions of impedance on me again. Its wasting my time.

Hyfi
05-28-2009, 06:00 AM
Tube amps are posed with a bit of a challenge when driving conventional magnetic speakers. The amp's high source impedance (low damping factor) does not have the same level of control to address the back EMF from the magnets. In my case, that is a non-issue with electrostats. Since they are essentially voltage driven devices and have no magnetic motors or EMF to address, bass extension and control are not compromised. On the other hand, stats offer a punishing load that requires a strong output section and power supply. My VTLs have 16 outputs and a 500 joule power supply.


Bingo! While I've heard excellent tube amps going back to the 70s with the Audio Research D-76, I never really *got* what they do best - the midrange. Partly because I listened more to rock music back then. I was more focused on low end punch and top end extension at the time which was better served by a Threshold Stasis (which was designed specifically to drive one of the founder's Dayton-Wrights and worked great with my Acoustats). For thirty years, HP of The Absolute Sound has been saying that it is all about getting the midrange right. Even after briefly hearing the IRS driven by a C-J Premier One in his environment back in '80 and '83, I still didn't full understand the difference. It took many more years and more listening to fully grasp the difference. It is about their ability to more accurately convey the harmonics of voice, piano, strings, brass. etc.

I'll differ a bit on the analog vs. digital thing. While I am a child of analog and have a decent vinyl rig, Redbook CDs are capable of wonderful midrange clarity. Their Achilles' Heel is top end extension although modern mastering at 24/192 and digital filtering has helped.

rw

Great explanations for the sound of tubes. I am learning to let the deep bass issue pass while the midrange is incredible. I guess the new tubes in both the VAC and the Counterpoint have settled in a bit now and my observations are changing for the better.

I had a great listening session last night and moved the Danes around a bit to adjust the bass output a bit. I played "Party In The Basement" by Pete Levin. Yes, Tony's almost identical looking brother. He plays mainly keys but many other instruments on the disk. Lineup includes Mike Stearn, Lenny White, Mark Egan, Danny Gotlieb, Lew Solof, and others.

Next up was Jon Luc Ponty's "Taste For Passion" which does have some nice bass by Ralph Armstrong along with Allan Zavod and Jamie Glaser. Some truly awesome tracks on this disk.

E-Stat
05-28-2009, 06:07 AM
I'm also in IT and I can't where an IT person would care about impedancee and electrical principles, signal propagation theorey, amplfier design...
Simple. I'll explain it to you. I have been a music lover for nearly forty years. Since I was first exposed to the coherency and purity of electrostats in 1976, I have owned and enjoyed many of them. Such a relationship has required that I spend time finding amplifiers that work well driving them. Many do not. I'm certainly not talking about *motors*.


so please don't spout your unqualified opinions of impedance on me again. Its wasting my time.
You continue to forget the topic. It's about "reactance". What I "spout" is common knowledge for those who actually work in the audio industry.

rw

Feanor
05-28-2009, 06:42 AM
Seems to me both you and 3dB are both guilty of condeming DBTs when don't like the results, and resorting to them when you do.


Ahh you want it both ways.

You want the test when it backs up your belief that things don't sound the same - you believe all cd players cables and ss amps sound the same and because people fail a test (which is arguable in the first place for many reasons starting with statistical innacuracy and sheer hoplesslessness of the people conducting the tests) and then when the tests indicate that people prefer Tube amps in general - including some of the most prestigious Recording engineers, and electronics engineers designing the best SS stuff - well you want to chuck out the DBT and say = well it's just preference and you should not do a DBT.
...

What Floyd Toole knows or does not know is irrelevant since he has been bought and paid for by a billiondollar company who profits on selling loudspeakers - the science is marketing - it is not independant research - they have a financial stake in selling the most product with the highest margin - not the best product with the lowest margin.

Floyd Toole had published most or all of his basic findings before joining Harmon.

3db
05-28-2009, 07:44 AM
Seems to me both you and 3dB are both guilty of condeming DBTs when don't like the results, and resorting to them when you do.



Floyd Toole had published most or all of his basic findings before joining Harmon.

Thanks Feanor. I wanted to say that about Flloyd but I wasn't sure. I don't condem DBT tests. I endorse them. What I was saying that I don't understand why one would do a DBT test between SS and tube becuase its an easy difference to hear. Picking either one is a choice on listener preference. Its analgous to choosing a car or a truck. It depends on the users preference and in that, there is no right or wrong.

Auricauricle
05-28-2009, 10:04 AM
Contrary to your point, 3db, I think we need to take into account that many of the posters here, in particularly the "regulars", are trained listeners and are able to discern characteristics and nuances of sound that many others don't.

Related to this discussion, I remember discussing with a friend my infatuation with tube equipment, explaining that (as Hyfi mentions) the midrange bloom was very appealing, etc. Simply the way the music was presented, was quite life-like and natural, giving presence to voices and wind instruments (saxophone, e.g.) that was almost eerie. My friend remarked that this was because of the amp's "dampening factor". Any thoughts about this or what he was talking about?

02audionoob
05-28-2009, 03:34 PM
Thanks Feanor. I wanted to say that about Flloyd but I wasn't sure. I don't condem DBT tests. I endorse them. What I was saying that I don't understand why one would do a DBT test between SS and tube becuase its an easy difference to hear. Picking either one is a choice on listener preference. Its analgous to choosing a car or a truck. It depends on the users preference and in that, there is no right or wrong.

I could be wrong, but I don't think it's all that easy to hear the difference between my Audio Research tube integrated and a solid state amp of a similar level of quality...probably not easier than hearing the difference between two tube amps.

E-Stat
05-29-2009, 06:10 AM
My friend remarked that this was because of the amp's "dampening factor". Any thoughts about this or what he was talking about?
Damping factor is the relationship between the output impedance of the amplifier and its nominal load where DF=speaker load / output impedance. Tube amps typically have a relatively high output impedance and thus a low DF. Here is the nominal case for my VTL 450s driving the Sound Labs:

8 / 1.3 = 6

Solid state amps, however, typically have much lower source impedance so that the DF can range anywhere from 60 (my Threshold Stasis) to 20,000 (Crown Macro Reference). The wide variation can easily be controlled by the amount of negative feedback. Low feedback amps typically have lower figures. The Crown has massive amounts of NFB which is dandy for specsmanship, but the sound quality suffers greatly.

So, what does DF have to do with sound? In the real world, amps drive speakers. The frequency response of those amps with low DFs is affected by speakers which possess wide swings in impedance over their response. The curve of many dynamic speakers looks like the Scream Machine roller coaster. Stereophile magazine uses a load with this characteristic to measure the effect on the amps they test. Look here. (http://www.stereophile.com/reference/60/index.html)The result is FR errors on the order of up to 1 db in certain areas. ( Some speakers are more linear in their impedance and are not affected as much. My stats, for example, possesses a shape with mild undulations, not wild peaks. ) As a result, there are some who assert that the "tube" sound is entirely due to this modified FR behavior. While I don't discount that effect with some amp/speaker matches, I find the tube difference based upon its inherently more linear open loop distortion behavior and more innocuous distortion profile. While the magnitudes are higher, they are in our sensory blind spot. Anyway, some speakers are not good matches for use with tube amps. Just for grins, I drove my double New Advents (which have a roller coaster profile) with the VTL amps. Yuck. The bass was thick and muddy and they sounded duller on top. I would use neither characteristic when describing the sound with the U-1s. The Stasis definitely works better with them.

A friend challenged me that this is the reason I prefer the VTLs to the Stasis on the stats. I put that challenge to the test. I bought a pair of 10 watt 1 ohm power resistors from Radio Shack and put one in series with a leg of each speaker wire with the Stasis. That effectively lowered the DF to match the VTLs. Did that magically change the Stasis to match the VTL's ability to float fleshed out, palpable voices in front of you? Emphatically, no. That is not to say, however, that there are some cases where that may be the case.

I cannot stress enough the notion that speakers and amplifiers must always be considered together.

rw

Auricauricle
05-29-2009, 09:12 AM
Thank you, E! Words to ponder upon for awhile....

RGA
05-29-2009, 09:57 PM
Deleted