0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 18929 times.
Quote from: occamIf they're below the noise, well.... well what????But indeed, your approach does take the use of actual human beings out of the determination as to whether human beings can actually perceive differences.Now that's funny, thanks Paul. Lin
If they're below the noise, well.... well what????But indeed, your approach does take the use of actual human beings out of the determination as to whether human beings can actually perceive differences.
Quote from: opnly bafld on 4 Jan 2009, 02:51 amQuote from: occamIf they're below the noise, well.... well what????But indeed, your approach does take the use of actual human beings out of the determination as to whether human beings can actually perceive differences.Now that's funny, thanks Paul. Lin It's funny 'cause it's... not true?Clearly neither of you guys has tried AD. I recommend it. Who knows - it might even serve as a wake up call.
i use aftermarket power cords, albeit cheap ones - home-brew stuff that cost me ~$30 per cord. i can't rationalize spending more than that. but, i also use independent isolation transformers on all digital gear, and i use balanced power conditioners on everything. (yes, even the isolation transformers are plugged into balanced power.)but, i still have one problem - in my present abode - a one-room carriage house above a garage - everything comes from one panel. and, when, for example, you turn off the fluorescent light in the kitchen area, you hear the "pop" thru the speakers. i'd love to get rid of this - any suggestions? sorry, if this is seen as a practical, productive question. doug s.
you turn off the fluorescent light ... you hear the "pop" thru the speakers.
QuoteThe thing is, engineering types and "scientific" research guys can be just as irrational although they look more rational doing it. Case in point, Dunlavy spent a lot of time recreating square waves via complex 1st order crossovers. All the current research tends to suggest he was wasting his time and your money doing so. It is interesting to read some history of science. It is filled with brilliant people who had irrational beliefs. The really brilliant guys also often had all kinds of hang-ups and where not the most level-headed people. That isn't to cast stones at the scientific method, it tends to lead us in the right direction over time. It does point out that individual people, no matter how brilliant, are a poor choice of beings to worship.I think you understand that the issue is not about Dunlavy per se. Nor is it about scientists who hold weird views. It's about trying to understand what components really add value and those that dont. If people really believe that a new power cable makes a difference when the evidence shows it has no effect, then more fool them. But in the real world, making claims that cannot be substantiated is called false advertising. Perpetuating such claims in forums such as this further induces potential customers to waste their money. I guess the fact that James Randi's $1million is still unclaimed by a cable company says it all...
The thing is, engineering types and "scientific" research guys can be just as irrational although they look more rational doing it. Case in point, Dunlavy spent a lot of time recreating square waves via complex 1st order crossovers. All the current research tends to suggest he was wasting his time and your money doing so. It is interesting to read some history of science. It is filled with brilliant people who had irrational beliefs. The really brilliant guys also often had all kinds of hang-ups and where not the most level-headed people. That isn't to cast stones at the scientific method, it tends to lead us in the right direction over time. It does point out that individual people, no matter how brilliant, are a poor choice of beings to worship.
Quote from: doug s. on 4 Jan 2009, 08:23 pm you turn off the fluorescent light ... you hear the "pop" thru the speakers.Don't use florescence fixtures......duh.
QuoteBut indeed, your approach does take the use of actual human beings out of the determination as to whether human beings can actually perceive differences.No it doesn't, not at all. DiffMaker still uses actual human beings to listen to the result, in fact anyone who wants to listen (and has a computer with a soundcard) -- not just the person who runs the hardware part of the test or is there when the test is run. But in this approach, the human listens only to what's different, and leaves out the parts of the signals that are the same.
But indeed, your approach does take the use of actual human beings out of the determination as to whether human beings can actually perceive differences.
On the idea that if you can't hear the difference all by itself, how likely are you to hear it with the other stuff going on?
Conclusions (or maybe "suggested explanations")The most significant characteristic of the Monsoon driver identified in these tests is its relatively consistent frontside radiation pattern, due to the dipole design. There is also possibly an improvement over some cone type drivers in low-level nonlinear intermodulation hash produced by the driver. The sound of the distortion produced by the cone speaker definitely sounds (to me) more objectionable than does the Monsoon, but the effect seems to be more in the lower mid-frequencies (which are mostly lacking from the Monsoon).Of course, another possibility is that maybe there are non-sound-related issues affecting the perceived quality of the speaker. It is not impossible that the dipole shape and appearance of the Monsoon panel could affect my (and others') impression of the sound, a matter perhaps better approached through double-blind listening tests.
QuoteBut indeed, your approach does take the use of actual human beings out of the determination as to whether human beings can actually perceive differences.No it doesn't, not at all. DiffMaker still uses actual human beings to listen to the result, in fact anyone who wants to listen (and has a computer with a soundcard) -- not just the person who runs the hardware part of the test or is there when the test is run. But in this approach, the human listens only to what's different, and leaves out the parts of the signals that are the same. On the idea that if you can't hear the difference all by itself, how likely are you to hear it with the other stuff going on?
Would you advocate that a wine company be prevented from advertising their product as "subjectively better than others" when that product doesn't pass a scientifically valid blind study proving it?
When you insist that others hold your belief system, that is the root of tyranny.
I would support holding them to truth in advertising in terms of not outright telling bold face lies, (Cable removes 99% of the distortion passing through it!) I do believe in giving them the same latitude we give companies in other industries that do the same type of "sales" pitch for their product.
QuoteWould you advocate that a wine company be prevented from advertising their product as "subjectively better than others" when that product doesn't pass a scientifically valid blind study proving it? Wine and Audio do seem to share a lot in common. But your analogy is not really fair. A better analogy would be some wine expert comes up with a pill to add to the wine that impoves the wine. Makes it sing! Makes the wine 'open up' and increase its musicality. Should these guys have to proved their pill works? Absolutely. Just as people who sell cables should have to do so.
QuoteWhen you insist that others hold your belief system, that is the root of tyranny.That's exactly the point. Calling cables a belief system is perhaps the best way to explain what people purport to hear because it doesnt appear at all evidence based. I had foolishly thought there was some real reason to use these expensive cables but now I know that if only I believe...and pay...
By this logic cables will end up in the same quackery box as iridolody, naturopathy, vitamin supplements and the like, where their claims are not outright lies but are often meant to deceive. A little less opinion and a few more facts surely cant hurt in this area, can it?
Quote from: millionmonkeys on 5 Jan 2009, 02:36 amQuoteWould you advocate that a wine company be prevented from advertising their product as "subjectively better than others" when that product doesn't pass a scientifically valid blind study proving it? Wine and Audio do seem to share a lot in common. But your analogy is not really fair. A better analogy would be some wine expert comes up with a pill to add to the wine that impoves the wine. Makes it sing! Makes the wine 'open up' and increase its musicality. Should these guys have to proved their pill works? Absolutely. Just as people who sell cables should have to do so. We could split hairs on analogies but I think we both understand where the other is coming from. I agree that most of what we see in audio has little to do with science. My only argument is that why should be require that it to uphold that standard? People read horoscopes, believe the things written in tabloids and chase after non-traditional medicine remedies all the time. It infuriates me when people sometimes believe in these types of things but I'd rather have people believing in nonsense rather than dictating what they should believe in based upon my judgment of those things. Really, if people want to believe in something that doesn't jive with science, that is their right. It is also your right not to pour your hard earned money into things that have no science to back them. I'm a proponent of telling people what the science says and letting them come to their own opinion from that point.QuoteQuoteWhen you insist that others hold your belief system, that is the root of tyranny.That's exactly the point. Calling cables a belief system is perhaps the best way to explain what people purport to hear because it doesnt appear at all evidence based. I had foolishly thought there was some real reason to use these expensive cables but now I know that if only I believe...and pay... Cables are not a belief system but the reliance upon science to find truth is. It is a system we use to find what is real. Some place more trust in that method than others. I think on average, in this age, people give the science a LOT of weight in coming to an opinion. And yes... most cable theories thrown around by the world of audio have nothing to do with good science. But people are free to use whatever method they choose to determine the validity of their value. Most audiophiles tend to trust their own subjective experience. Some of them know the flaws of that method in terms of science and some of them don't. Some of them ignore good data and research that points to the folly of trusting their ears. But you know what? At the end of the day it is THEIR personal enjoyment of the hobby that is what they are pursuing. If they want to pursue things that have nothing to do with science and believe in wacky things that really is their choice. QuoteI would support holding them to truth in advertising in terms of not outright telling bold face lies, (Cable removes 99% of the distortion passing through it!) I do believe in giving them the same latitude we give companies in other industries that do the same type of "sales" pitch for their product.QuoteBy this logic cables will end up in the same quackery box as iridolody, naturopathy, vitamin supplements and the like, where their claims are not outright lies but are often meant to deceive. A little less opinion and a few more facts surely cant hurt in this area, can it?My inclination is to use science to advance the art of audio reproduction. For the average guy, they are just pursuing a hobby. For them it is about having a good time and playing with toys to achieve personal gratification. That often takes on things that have nothing to do with science. Personally, I'm not really threatened by that nor do I think that I should dictate how others pursue the hobby. It is really their choice. That includes some of the people that sell product. After all, if they believe in it's value, who am I to prevent them from selling it to other people who see it's value also? If I ran a supermarket, would I be morally required to remove all the tabloids, stop selling lottery tickets, and squelch the sales of organic supplements that have not passed FDA standards? I don't think so.... I think really that is the choice of the individual. I'd rather have a little snake oil sales than trespass upon personal liberty.
Bob,
I read your Distortion Isolation in the Time Domain -http://www.libinst.com/distortion_isolation_in_the_time.htmYour Praxis suite appears to be a powerful tool. If you are offering me the extended free use of your software and an appropriate calibrated microphone, the answer is definitely yes!
Who is that overprocessed guy singing with the nasal condition backed with the treacle infused violins? Yuck.
If you are asserting that listening to a residual is equivalent to hearing the difference between 2 signals, I simply cannot agree.
...if I were to suggest that some residual was significant, Opaque or someone else, would justifiably comment that I'd not considered masking and all the research that has gone into lossy compression.
That is, unless YOU can hear absolute phase of a sine.
Define your experiment with diffmaker, in detail, define the parameters, and let us know your findings.
We anxiously await your study. Will it be as definitive as your What Makes a Speaker Sound Good??http://www.libinst.com/what_makes_a_speaker_sound_good.htm
So we're back to blind testing? I realize your title was a 'come on' , as you obviously had no intention of showing correlation let alone causality, but rather wanted to show the scope of Praxis' capabilities. [quote/]{For some reason, I can't get the quoting stuff to work right from here on, sorry)More casual than that, actually. I was just taken by the sound of the Monsoons, and took a stab at trying to find what it might be about them, and thought it was interesting enough to put the measurements on the web site. No hard conclusions, but hey, since when do you find such definite conclusions about what technical things are causing a listening preference? Certainly not in these forums! (Yes, there were examples of how PRAXIS might be used to investigate a speaker, but if that's all it was about, would I be doing it with a speaker that had been a marketing failure?!?)Quote I've outlined my preferred approach in a prior post. Admittedly, its not double blind, but adequate for single blind and ABx. I think mine is a more valid approach. I don't have any big problem with double or single blind or even ABx, except that actual conducting of those tests seems to be pretty damned rare. They take a long time and a lot of cooperation to do, they're not much fun, so hardly anyone seems to have been actually involved in one, and then for the ones that are done, almost one accepts the results either way (for myriad reasons) unless the stated results agree with preconceived beliefs. They haven't resolved the controversies in the past 30+ years, anyway.Probably DiffMaker won't either, though. DiffMaker does have the advantage at least that everyone can still decide for himself about what he is hearing (and doesn't need to do a lot of work to at least hear someone else's recorded result) and doesn't have to count so much on someone else's judgment. IMHO, of course! Hey, I'm glad at least it's getting some attention. Sure glad I didn't try to make it a commercial project, it's been hard to give away!-not Bob
I've outlined my preferred approach in a prior post. Admittedly, its not double blind, but adequate for single blind and ABx. I think mine is a more valid approach.
millionmonkey, why have you joined Audio Circle? You dont really seem to enjoy audio in any way, and instead only post to discourage other's beliefs. This is generally a place for people who are truly passion about audio.
Listening to the Diffmaker output of a stereo signal Diffed with the same signal with slight reverb and echo would be barely perceivable noise, listening to the original stereo signals the difference is quite obvious
Quote from: rydenfan on 5 Jan 2009, 03:04 ammillionmonkey, why have you joined Audio Circle? You dont really seem to enjoy audio in any way, and instead only post to discourage other's beliefs. This is generally a place for people who are truly passion about audio.To defend millionmonkey a bit -- rydebfan, must we assume that honest skepticism isn't compatible with passion about audio?I know that for me much of the current faith-based audio scene tends to ruin audio socializing at times -- I want to listen to what a set of speakers can do in someone else's system, but have to wait passively (to avoid argument) through philosophising about jars of rocks or cryoed outlets. We all have rights to our own perceptions and opinions and no one has a monopoly on audio passion because of buying into certain particular beliefs.
