Interesting Thesis on IC's

[Steve Eddy]

I can say this - take any musical instrument - keyboard, guitar, violin, horn and analyze it with test equipment. What do you get? Not the whole picture.

What exactly don't you get?

Same holds true for speakers, amps, etc. Take gear that sounds good. No two amps sound the same...

How something "sounds" to a given individual is quite subjective. And just because two amps may "sound different" to a given individual it doesn't inherently mean that there are any audible differences between them.

...and for certain no two speakers sound the same...

Speakers are another matter. The differences between them can be quite significant and well within known thresholds of audibility.

The same doesn't hold true for most electronics.

se

[Dual-500]

1) What exactly don't you get?

2) How something "sounds" to a given individual is quite subjective. And just because two amps may "sound different" to a given individual it doesn't inherently mean that there are any audible differences between them.

3) Speakers are another matter. The differences between them can be quite significant and well within known thresholds of audibility.

4) The same doesn't hold true for most electronics.

se

1) Nothing - I do get it. Test gear won't discern a Bundy tenor saxophone from a Yamaha. Let alone who is playing either. I can tell you the difference as I played a Bundy for years. They don't sound the same.

Different heads on the same drum sound differently. There is no electronics available that I know of that can detect that and quantify it in terms of test results.

2) Agreed. However, many can tell audible differences between amplifiers and other components that others cannot perceive. Our entire perception of sight and sound is mapped individually. The psychologists have proven that. You and I will both agree on red, but won't be perceiving the same thing. They have tested individuals with inverting lenses in front of their eyes where the world is upside down - takes about 2 weeks for their brains to re-map the vision processing and then everything is perceived as normal. Take the lenses off and they are screwed - everything then goes upside down. Takes another 2 weeks to remap vison processing back to normal. Same with hearing. We don't have the stereophonic doppler discering capabilities at birth. That's all learned and unique to each of us.

3) Agreed again. So, would you not agree that two diffeerent pairs of speakers may test out to the same basic specifications - yet, clearly sound differently. That being said, many would agree on the differences and be able to reliably tell which they were listening to - yet, there would also be many others that couldn't tell the difference, let alone care.

4) True again. But not an absolute. I can tell one amp from another - some have glaring differences, some subtle. I'm not talking comparing tubes to solid state here. Tube to tube and SS to SS amps - apples to apples. There are many on this and other audio forums that can readily discern differences between amplifiers and other electronic front end components. Differences that don't always show up on test gear.

Put two different drummers on the same kit. Tuned the same. Have them play the same material at the same tempo. They won't sound the same - I guarantee it. They will not strike the drums the same. And even more obvious will be the sound of the cymbals.

That's why music is taught in the School of Fine Arts and not the School of Engineering Math and Science Lab.

Cheers!

[Steve Eddy]

1) Nothing - I do get it.

That's not what I meant. You said "...take any musical instrument - keyboard, guitar, violin, horn and analyze it with test equipment. What do you get? Not the whole picture."

I was asking you what don't you get that doesn't leave you with the whole picture?

Test gear won't discern a Bundy tenor saxophone from a Yamaha.

2) Agreed. However, many can tell audible differences between amplifiers...

I must have missed it. When was this established?

Our entire perception of sight and sound is mapped individually. The psychologists have proven that.

Yes. But they've also proven that our perceptions can be highly unreliable, which is why it's trivially easy to get people to perceive differences even when there are none.

3) Argeed again. So, would you not agree that two diffeerent pairs of speakers may test out to the same basic specifications - yet, clearly sound differently.

What do you mean by "basic specifications"? If you mean "basic specs" as in what's typically listed on a spec sheet, then sure, they could very well sound different. But "basic specifications" is a far far cry from a full measurement suite.

That being said, many would agree on the differences and be able to reliably tell which they were listening to - yet, there would also be many others that couldn't tell the difference, let alone care.

Sure.

4) True again. But not an absolute. I can tell one amp from another - some have glaring differences, some subtle. I'm not talking comparing tubes to solid state here. Tube to tube and SS to SS amps - apples to apples.

Then you should step up and demonstrate this. I believe there are still some cash prizes being offered to those who can do this without peeking.

There are many on this and other audio forums that can readily discern differences between amplifiers and other electronic front end components.

Sure, there have been many people over the past 30 some odd years who have made such claims. But so far, no one has ever demonstrated this ability under controlled conditions.

Differences that don't always show up on test gear.

But as yet, no one has demonstrated actual audible differences under controlled conditions except when the differences were trivially measurable and within known thresholds of audibility.

If someone has, please point me to it so I can check it out.

se

[Ajani]

Then you should step up and demonstrate this. I believe there are still some cash prizes being offered to those who can do this without peeking.



Sure, there have been many people over the past 30 some odd years who have made such claims. But so far, no one has ever demonstrated this ability under controlled conditions.



But as yet, no one has demonstrated actual audible differences under controlled conditions except when the differences were trivially measurable and within known thresholds of audibility.

If someone has, please point me to it so I can check it out.

se

The idea that no one has ever passed a blind test is a myth. In fact here's a test published in the Wall Street Journal. Both John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile were able to identify the more expensive speaker cable in a blind test:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...p_us_inside_to

Using two identical CD players, I tested a $2,000, eight-foot pair of Sigma Retro Gold cables from Monster Cable, which are as thick as your thumb, against 14-gauge, hardware-store speaker cable. Many audiophiles say they are equally good. I couldn't hear a difference and was a wee bit suspicious that anyone else could. But of the 39 people who took this test, 61% said they preferred the expensive cable.

That may not be much of a margin for two products with such drastically different prices, but I was struck by how the best-informed people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable.
Its sound was described as "richer," "crisper" and "more coherent." Like some wines, come to think of it.

In absolute terms, though, the differences weren't great. Mr. Atkinson guesstimated the expensive cables sounded roughly 5% better. Remember, by definition, an audiophile is one who will bear any burden, pay any price, to get even a tiny improvement in sound.

More info on the testing is provided by John Atkinson in post #7 here:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...comment-334228

[Steve Eddy]

The idea that no one has ever passed a blind test is a myth. In fact here's a test published in the Wall Street Journal. Both John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile were able to identify the more expensive speaker cable in a blind test:

Yes, I'm familiar with that.

However it wasn't a test so much as a dog and pony show and did absolutely nothing to establish whether there were any audible differences between the cables.

Each listener simply switched between A and B and then stated their preference if any. So even if there was no real difference at all, each listener had a 50/50 chance of saying they preferred the Monster cable.

That's it. One trial, 50/50 chance of picking the Monster. That JA and MF both happened to say they preferred what ended up being the Monster cable is ultimately meaningless.

Even JA admits it lacked any sort of scientific rigor.

Now, if JA or MF had gone through say 10 or 20 trials, with the cables being randomly assigned to A or B for each trial, and they consistently preferred the Monster cable, or at least enough to be statistically significant, then you might have something.

But that's not what happened here.

se

[Ajani]

Yes, I'm familiar with that.

However it wasn't a test so much as a dog and pony show and did absolutely nothing to establish whether there were any audible differences between the cables.

Each listener simply switched between A and B and then stated their preference if any. So even if there was no real difference at all, each listener had a 50/50 chance of saying they preferred the Monster cable.

That's it. One trial, 50/50 chance of picking the Monster. That JA and MF both happened to say they preferred what ended up being the Monster cable is ultimately meaningless.

Even JA admits it lacked any sort of scientific rigor.

Now, if JA or MF had gone through say 10 or 20 trials, with the cables being randomly assigned to A or B for each trial, and they consistently preferred the Monster cable, or at least enough to be statistically significant, then you might have something.

But that's not what happened here.

se

So it's mere coincidence that the experts had no trouble then?

Also JA has mentioned on the Stereophile forums, taking another blind test with MF, where he got 4 out 5 and Fremer got 5 out 5 correct... yet their results were seen as statistically insignificant because the 'average person' in the test didn't do well.... (I'll post the link later, if I can find it again)... So the combined results of 2 experts was 9 out of 10, but I'm sure that is also coincidence, until they both submit to around 20 trials each, right? Then their results would likely still be thrown out if the 'average man' doesn't score that well....

DBT relies way too much on statistics for me to take it that seriously...

[Steve Eddy]

So it's mere coincidence that the experts had no trouble then?

What exactly do you mean by "no trouble"?

Apparently none of the 39 who participated had any "trouble" stating their preference for A or B.

And what exactly makes them "experts"? Just because they write for an audio magazine?

Consider this and then tell me if you truly think MF at least qualifies as an "expert."

The common stated purpose behind high end audio is to preserve the signal and not alter or otherwise damage it in any way. There is endless marketing literature out there about all the pains taken to do this, using the purest conductors, the finest dielectrics, etc.

Some years ago Harmonic Technology introduced their "CyberLight" cables. While intended to be used between analogue components, they were in actually an optical cable. Electro-optical converters built into each end converted the source's electrical signal into an optical signal and at the other end, from optical back to electrical.

However these converters ultimately perform worse than the cheapest opamps you're likely to find in mass market gear. They had a huge hump in the low frequency response and massive amounts of harmonic and intermodulation distortion.

They mangled the signal so badly that when JA ran measurements on them, he wrote "If this were a review of a conventional product, I would dismiss it as being broken."

He further wrote "I am puzzled that Harmonic Technology, which makes good-sounding, reasonably priced conventional cables, would risk their reputation with something as technically flawed as the CyberLight."

And the real nail in the coffin, "I really don't see how the CyberLight P2A and Wave cables can be recommended."

However this is how the "expert," MF, summed them up in his review:

Harmonic Technology's Light Analog Module Photon Transducer is the most significant single technological breakthrough I have experienced in my career as an audio reviewer. It is immediately superior in every way.

So again, what exactly qualifies him as an "expert" if he finds huge frequency response aberrations and gross amounts of distortion to be "superior in every way"?

Also JA has mentioned on the Stereophile forums, taking another blind test with MF, where he got 4 out 5 and Fremer got 5 out 5 correct... yet their results were seen as statistically insignificant because the 'average person' in the test didn't do well.... (I'll post the link later, if I can find it again)...

Yes, I'm familiar with that test as well.

And I stated at the time that just because the average of everyone who took the test wasn't statistically significant, then JA's and MF's results shouldn't have been dismissed out of hand.

So the combined results of 2 experts was 9 out of 10...

No, you can't combine them like that. That's just as flawed as dismissing them because the average of all participants was no better than chance. You can only rightly consider them individually.

...but I'm sure that is also coincidence, until they both submit to around 20 trials each, right?

While 5 out of 5 may be statistically significant, the confidence level isn't very high.

So while I don't think that result should have been dismissed, neither do I think it provides any sort of conclusive evidence that there were actual audible differences between the cables.

More trials should have been done in order to improve the confidence level in the event there actually were audible differences.

Then their results would likely still be thrown out if the 'average man' doesn't score that well....

Again, I don't think their results should have been dismissed the way they were. Demonstrating actual audible differences doesn't require some group of individuals all score high. All it takes is one person.

DBT relies way too much on statistics for me to take it that seriously...

But it's only through adequate controls and statistics that we can establish actual audible differences with any confidence.

Don't be critical of those who ran the test for dismissing JA's and MF's results out of hand and then turn around and be just as dismissive yourself.

se