Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 89
  1. #51
    3db
    3db is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.
    Last edited by 3db; 05-25-2009 at 09:47 AM.

  2. #52
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by 3db
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by 3db
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by 3db
    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 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by 3db
    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
    Last edited by E-Stat; 05-25-2009 at 12:15 PM.

  3. #53
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    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!
    "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
    ------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

  4. #54
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    506
    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.

  5. #55
    3db
    3db is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by mlsstl
    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.

  6. #56
    3db
    3db is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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 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?

  7. #57
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat D
    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.

  8. #58
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    4,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat D
    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.

  9. #59
    Ajani
    Guest
    To expand upon my earlier post

    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by mlsstl
    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/...ver_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...

  10. #60
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by 3db
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by 3db
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by 3db
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by 3db
    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

  11. #61
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    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

  12. #62
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Classic test

    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    ...

    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 in Stereo Review in 1987. The title was, "Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?".

    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.

  13. #63
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Anywhere but here...
    Posts
    13,243
    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.
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

  14. #64
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by mlsstl
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by mlsstl
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by mlsstl
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by mlsstl
    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

  15. #65
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    4,380
    Quote Originally Posted by GMichael
    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:



    in a room that would only allow for these:


  16. #66
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by 3db
    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.

  17. #67
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    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.

  18. #68
    3db
    3db is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

  19. #69
    3db
    3db is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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?

  20. #70
    3db
    3db is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    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.

  21. #71
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    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.

  22. #72
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by 3db
    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.

  23. #73
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    506
    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. ;-)
    Last edited by mlsstl; 05-27-2009 at 04:20 AM.

  24. #74
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by 3db
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by 3db
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by 3db
    Whats your degree in?
    IT. Thanks for finally answering my question.

    rw
    Last edited by E-Stat; 05-27-2009 at 01:28 PM.

  25. #75
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    4,380
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA

    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.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •