[Ethan Winer]

does anybody make a mono bloc configuration pre-amp? You know, two separate units, so there's no possibility of crosstalk?

That would be pointless for all the LP lovers, because LPs are lucky to get 20 dB channel separation!

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

--Ethan

[Daygloworange]

I'm not saying that all capacitors are the same. But if they sound different, then that difference can be measured. And the difference can be measured more reliably, and more repeatedly, and to a much finer resolution, than could be done by ear. If you believe otherwise, I'd love to hear why!

The more I think about it, the more I have to agree, if I can clearly hear a difference with my ears, then measuring instruments must be able to do it, and be able to plot it on a much larger scale

I heard Wilson Alexandrias with Halcro amplification and and commensurate digital source professionally set up in a treated room that sounded like crap.  My buddy and I both thought so.

But somebody else might think otherwise. I have had the exact reverse situation happen numerous times in the last few months. It boiled down to listener preference. I was a little shocked that there could be such a huge disparity in what constituted a good sounding system.

Cheers

[miklorsmith]

Regardless, if it measures great and sounds bad to a lot of people, the measurements aren't telling the whole story.

[Daygloworange]

That would be pointless for all the LP lovers, because LPs are lucky to get 20 dB channel separation!

Now you've gone and done it! I've often wondered about how a needle being vibrated two different ways could be reproducing sound with out huge distortion and crosstalk. Even on multi-track reel to reel recorders there is huge crosstalk between channels, and there is a physical gap there that doesn't exist between the two sides of a stylus.

Regardless, if it measures great and sounds bad to a lot of people, the measurements aren't telling the whole story.

It still could be that the people don't like what is good. Another group of people might think that said system sounds great. That's all I'm saying, I'm not arguing with you.

Cheers

[Ethan Winer]

Whether Ethan's statement is true or not is irrelevant to any non-manufacturer.

Not so! At heart this is about consumerism - not being taken advantage of by unscrupulous vendors, and not being tricked into paying ten times more than necessary for audio gear. Specs are indeed relevant, and the consumer who understand this will ultimately enjoy a better audio system at a lower price than someone who does not understand.

> The masses are concerned with getting better sound in-room. <

The key here is "in-room." It kills me to see audiophiles obsess over unnecessarily expensive loudspeakers and other gear, while ignoring the 2 ton elephant: Their untreated room is causing infinitely more audible damage than they realize.

--Ethan

[gitarretyp]

> How about spacial cues? Why does one pre-amp allow for a deep sound stage and then another one jumbles the sound stage up in a 2 dimensional way. <

This is exactly what I mean. There is no way a preamp can have any affect at all on spatial cues, unless it has a rolled off high end (easy to measure), or has DSP reverb effects. Please read my Believe article which explains why imaging etc can seem to change even when nothing at all has changed. Here's the link again:

www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html

This is just nonsense. Soundstage is immensely affected by electronics due to things like crosstalk and any frequency abberation between channels or emphasis in certain bands contributing to a forward sound and phase anamolies. Of course, these are measureable effects.

I find it somewhat comical and disingenuous that the one thing you really claim matters happens to be fixed or improved by what you sell, while you're basically insulting most of the rest of the industry with some of your claims (some of which i strongly disagree with).

[Ethan Winer]

Regardless, if it measures great and sounds bad to a lot of people, the measurements aren't telling the whole story.

I agree with that, but first you have to prove that many people can consistently identify the good from the bad. Whenever this has been attempted correctly - double blind - the tests have failed miserably. The only time people can distinguish one competent component from another is when they can read the product label.

--Ethan

[miklorsmith]

Oooo.  The gauntlet has been thrown.

I'm not getting into any DBT/ABX discussion, it's all been hashed out before and is a bigger source of argument than this albatross.

[Steve Eddy]

This seems to have morphed into a theoretical discussion of what might be possible to do.  If it were possible, somewhat cost effective, and useful, wouldn't it be happening in practice already?

Well, as I said to Dayglow, the first order of business is establishing actual audible differences. Until that's done, what's there to do? Try and measure something which may not even be there to measure?

I want to see you guys quantify all this stuff, really, and in practice.  You will revolutionize the science of design and leave all others in the dust.

What would truly be revolutionary would be if those who make claims of actual audibility actually established their claims with something more than ego, vanity, and/or denial.

That's really the sticking point. Until actual audibility can be shown for differences below currently known audibility thresholds, there's not much else to do.

se

[Daygloworange]

I agree with that, but first you have to prove that many people can consistently identify the good from the bad. Whenever this has been attempted correctly - double blind - the tests have failed miserably. The only time people can distinguish one competent component from another is when they can read the product label.

Ethan, FWIW to you, I have read studies that show otherwise. Again not to argue, but just add to the conversation. I have to find the links, and I'll post them here when I do.

Soundstage is immensely affected by electronics due to things like crosstalk and any frequency abberation between channels or emphasis in certain bands contributing to a forward sound and phase anamolies. Of course, these are measureable effects.

I would totally agree with you on this.

Cheers

[rajacat]

So why bother auditioning components when, assuming the proper measurement, you could order them on the basis of a spreadsheet?

[miklorsmith]

Right, before I explain what something sounds like I need to come up with analytical protocol and results to describe the subjective experience.

1)  AC would disappear overnight
2)  This will never happen.  Never, ever, ever.  Quit dreaming.

[Ethan Winer]

Soundstage is immensely affected by electronics due to things like crosstalk and any frequency abberation between channels or emphasis in certain bands contributing to a forward sound and phase anamolies. Of course, these are measureable effects.

Yes, they are measurable. And if you can measure a meaningful deviation, then "sound stage" can be affected. But what competent preamp has crosstalk worse than 60 dB, or a response that deviates more than tiny amount within the audible range? Other than boutique toob gear of course. As a professional recording engineer, if I bought a preamp and it colored the sound audibly in any way, I'd send it back for a refund!

> I find it somewhat comical and disingenuous that the one thing you really claim matters happens to be fixed or improved by what you sell, while you're basically insulting most of the rest of the industry with some of your claims (some of which i strongly disagree with). <

Actually, I prefer to not include my company link when posting to threads like this, but AC apparently has no option for that.

More to the point, I am not here to sell acoustic treatment. However, I am in this business because I truly believe in it, not the other way around. Since you say you strongly disagree with some of my claims, you'd be more convincing if you'd address that rather than accuse me of things that are not true while avoiding the issues. I'm not even sure how you jumped from my technical points to "He's just trying to sell stuff." Where did I try to sell anything?

So let's discuss instead of hurl irrelevant accusations. What do you disagree with, and why?

--Ethan

[John Casler]

John,

> Can anyone look at these measurements and tell me what instruments and people are on the recording? <

No, but that's irrelevant to this discussion! What you are asking about is basically artificial intelligence. What I'm talking about is assessing audio equipment to determine if it changes the sound passing through it. It doesn't matter if the singer is John, Paul, George, or Ringo. Measurements absolutely can tell if a piece of gear (or your room) is changing the sound in any way that is audible.

--Ethan

Hi Ethan,

That is absolutely not true.

If John is singing, you can "hear" that it is him.  If George or Paul is singing, then you can "easily" hear the difference.  There is no measurement possible to discern between who is singing.  As well it certainly cannot be determined by looking at the measurement, yet it is "easily" known by listening.

A different voice "IS" an "audible" change.

But as I said earlier, this is an argument of those arguing "past" each other.

Hearing is not simply the act of receiving frequencies, amplitudes, distortions and phase relationships.  It is the process of assembling these into the perception of sound.

Same with a measuring instrument.  If you don't have a "readout" you don't have a measurment.

When someone says they hear something, and an Objectivist says it is impossible to hear that since you cannot measure it, they are incorrect, as per the above.

Hearing a musical piece is not simply recieving these signals and they are not measurable as the ear/brain does measure them.

Measurement is the gradient perception by a sensitive instrument to whatever that instrument is designed for.  To reach the limit of that or all of those instruments capabilities and say that the act of hearing is not in the argument, when that is the center of it, seems strange.  When the whole discussion is, can we hear things that are not measurable.

If we do not define "hear" as what we perceive, then how do you measure what we hear?

But we also have to understand that some measuring instruments are more sensitive to specific elements of sound than can be heard by the ear/brain.

I think it strange that this argument rages on and on.

It seems all points have been made and Objectivists are stating that the "perception" of sound is not relevant if it can't be measured.

Subjectivists hearing the unmeasurable know better.

The FOG in the issue is that subjective perception can be "enhanced" by mental focus and imagination.  Even developing the sense of "what to listen for" opens up significant awarness.

Ahh now the Objectivity has a foot in the door, because the Subjectivity is "imagining" what they are hearing.

See it is not really an argument, but a "line" where the Ob/Sub balance in all of us accepts the limits of objectivity, and subjectivity of their own personal selves.

I find I fall in a "blend" as do I believe most audiophiles.

I find it actually an enjoyable part of the hobby to listen to some of these less than scientific claims like the Bedini Clarifier, I mentioned and I think someone else mentioned Ming or Ping or Pung Dots or somewhat.

I too laugh at those and even the Shakti (wooden coat rack) treatments I heard at CES, for what they claim.

As all have mentioned, the beliefs or science asserted, doesn't change what really is, or how everyone involved will perceive it.

And while some have focused this discussion on "reproduced" music, the same is true for live music.

"He just hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" - Paul Simon

[Steve Eddy]

Agreed. That's why I think if you were to use two (4 head) soundstage microphones and implement them properly(possibly in a binaural, or dummy head configuration) to record a pair of speakers A/B'ing various components, and were to do overlays of the 8 separate tracks of info of A/B comparisons, you could possibly see very easily if there are indeed audible differences.

Not sure I see how this would see if there are actual audible differences. What you need for that is a listener and the proper controls.

King of Sweden huh? Does he have a daughter? I have a thing for Scandinavian women. 

I think you just like women with hair legs. 

se

[Steve Eddy]

GOD DAMMIT PEOPLE, SLOW DOWN! 

se

[Daygloworange]

What would truly be revolutionary would be if those who make claims of actual audibility actually established their claims with something more than ego, vanity, and/or denial.

That's really the sticking point. Until actual audibility can be shown for differences below currently known audibility thresholds, there's not much else to do.

Agreed. I gave one example that I think could be done at a reasonable cost, and potentially yield definitive proof. But there would be tremendous backlash to the industry, if it did.

So why bother auditioning components when, assuming the proper measurement, you could order them on the basis of a spreadsheet?

You would have to correlate all the data and have a data base where everyone agrees subjectively how the measurements equates to perception. That's where it gets tough.

Cheers

[Steve Eddy]

Regardless, if it measures great and sounds bad to a lot of people, the measurements aren't telling the whole story.

How do you conclude that? Measurements don't tell you what one's preferences are.

se

[miklorsmith]

OK, I prefer bad measurements.  I'll preface all future postings with that disclaimer.

[Daygloworange]

Not sure I see how this would see if there are actual audible differences. What you need for that is a listener and the proper controls.

Sorry. I meant audible to a microphone. A microphone will pick up faithfully what is there, and would empirically show that.

If John is singing, you can "hear" that it is him.  If George or Paul is singing, then you can "easily" hear the difference.  There is no measurement possible to discern between who is singing.  As well it certainly cannot be determined by looking at the measurement, yet it is "easily" known by listening.

There is equipment out there that can do it. With every human voice, there is what is known as a formant. It is unique to every individual, as every one has a different size chest cavity, vocal tract, and different vocal chords. You can't disguise it by imitating another voice.  And yes, it can be isolated and measured.

Cheers