[Scotty]

Should daj cease and desist placing subjective opinion polls in The Lab
and place future polls of this type in the Audio Central Forum?
Occam,feel free to delete or move any polls you see fit to where ever they are
most appropiate,it won't bother me at all.
Scotty

[daj]

Should daj cease and desist placing subjective opinion polls in The Lab
and place future polls of this type in the Audio Central Forum?
Occam,feel free to delete or move any polls you see fit to where ever they are
most appropiate,it won't bother me at all.
Scotty

Occam must appreciate not having to think for himself with you around.

And, ummm, you don't have to pay attention to things you don't like, Scotty. No need to bugger me with your puff puff puff. You have the option of choosing not to participate. Please do.

[Occam]

........
Occam must appreciate not having to think for himself with you around.
......

No, that role is fufilled by SWMBO (She Who Must Be Obeyed), my wife, who has put up with me for 34 years.

[Daryl]

And what does O.M.G mean?

daj followed up some of my speil with it then deleted it later.

But I didn't get it.

[Daygloworange]

Oh my God.

Cheers

[Daryl]

Thanks Daygloworange.

Now I know what it means but I still don't get it.

Must be an inside joke between daj and daj.

[daj]

........
Occam must appreciate not having to think for himself with you around.
......

No, that role is fufilled by SWMBO (She Who Must Be Obeyed), my wife, who has put up with me for 34 years.

LOL, Occam. Got one myself. Hasn't put up with me quite that long, yet, but I'm hoping.

[daj]

Thanks Daygloworange.

Now I know what it means but I still don't get it.

Must be an inside joke between daj and daj.

. . . but I get a KICK out of me.

[Occam]

. . . but I get a KICK out of me.

Obviously. 

daj,

But I can't figure out why you are starting these polls (not why you're starting them in the Lab, but why you're posting them anywhere? The subjects potentially lead to some quite interesting discussions, such as
Golden Ear.....
Can one be trained to be a more astute listener via the various 'ear training' courses?

Damping Factor
Hard Amps (where the output impedance of the amp approximates that of the speakers)
Current output amps, i.e. First Watt, and appropriate speaker alignments for them as discussed by both Rod Elliot and Nelson Pass

DBT for evaluations
And this is one I frankly see absolutely no point in pursuing, unless its restricted to people who've actually conducted valid DBT experiments, which, I believe in AC, totals to Squat.

But save for the last, I don't see how the polls could possibly lead to useful discussions that couldn't be more easily initiated by simply starting a discussion. The first 2 aren't my bailywick, but I'm sure you could get folks to participate in a thoughful exchange, or a bitch slap fest, depending on your preferences.

FWIW,
Paul

[daj]

. . . but I get a KICK out of me.

Obviously. 

daj,

But I can't figure out why you are starting these polls (not why you're starting them in the Lab, but why you're posting them anywhere?

Occam,

Previous explanations in view, I guess you're probably reiterating your forum philisophy by implication. I'm afraid I don't really have time to regularly peruse or participate in forum discussions and bitch slaps, though I think I've got the flavor, here. Maybe not the best approach attitude to a discussion board, but hey. But I need data to reaudiorient myself after about 30 years away, and this set of forums represents what I think is probably a fairly typical group of modern audio enthusiasts and recording professionals. The intervening tear away from reality in the popular press makes it seem like these last few decades have been marked by a successful, technical slash and burn program, where science and engineering have been nearly completely burned away from the marketing of audio, and in some cases the practice of it, by people who might have been wine and food merchants or gurus who saw a better opportunity in audio, with the aid of acolytes having little or no technical acumen, but I know this can't be so. I am trying to gauge the proportion who have these days at least a passing interest in reality and in maintining their recognition of it. For instance, if the term "Golden Ear" is no longer a contemptuous epithet slung by engineers at those they regarded as imaginative audio nincowpoops, which seems to be the case, then that means something. Part of the reason for this is to stop my head from spinning as soon as possible, and the other is admittedly commercial, to see whether it is now absolutely necessary to lay on a thick layer of hype to sell anything in high end audio, and do so without the drawbacks of direct advice, of which I've had a bit already, by drawijng my own conclusions. If I can spark some discussion and bitch slapping without getting banned, okay, but I am having trouble working that into my plan.

Best, David

P.S. What does the "Now Playing" field do?

[shep]

Things have been a bit tense around here of late, tempers flair. Maybe daj if you were just a wee bit less verbose? Instead of throwing out topics right and left, take the time to read what has already been posted. There's enough to keep you busy and up-to-date for a good while! Yeah I know, we all want to be "noticed", to get into the fray, but it pays off in the long run to sit back and wait for the answers to come of their own accord. 'He who waits.." I think we've all had enough of personality clashes and blood boiling, fangs barred etc.  aa

[SWG255]

I think the Lab is the wrong forum for these polls, at least if I understand what the original intent of this forum was to be. I understood "The Lab" to be primarily for those doing DYI projects or for those interested in finding out something rather specific about audio electronics, speakers etc.  It therefore seems to me that most of DAJ's polls would be better placed in "Audio Central". I also think the thread on modern recording technology, although fascinating, would be better placed in Audio Central, but that's just my two cents worth, and that's all the opinion is worth.

I must admit to having some sympathy for DAJ's point of view however. I think the pendulum has swung a bit too far toward the subjectivist camp in audio and a swing back to a little more objectivity would be a good thing, both for the quality of the audio equipment available, and especially, for the prices of much of that equipment. 

As for the "Now playing" box, I'm sure someone has told you what that's about---it's about why we do this in the first place (I hope), the music we're listening to.

Enjoy!

[daj]

And what does O.M.G mean?

daj followed up some of my speil with it then deleted it later.

But I didn't get it.

I only followed up with "OMG".

[daj]

Things have been a bit tense around here of late, tempers flair. Maybe daj if you were just a wee bit less verbose? Instead of throwing out topics right and left, take the time to read what has already been posted. There's enough to keep you busy and up-to-date for a good while! Yeah I know, we all want to be "noticed", to get into the fray, but it pays off in the long run to sit back and wait for the answers to come of their own accord. 'He who waits.." I think we've all had enough of personality clashes and blood boiling, fangs barred etc.  aa

Someone's temper is flaring? Seems pretty calm around here to me.

I think I usually try starting out with just a bit of stuff in my postings, and have to keep adding on because of the lack of understanding that results from an attempt to be concise. Except for the polarioty thing. That was as long as permissible right from the start.

Mainly, I am trying to learn certain things with a minimum time spent and with minimum of exposure. Not technical facts, but impressions of the audio community. I guess I am failing in this. Please, it would be better for me if no one notices me.

[daj]

I think the Lab is the wrong forum for these polls, at least if I understand what the original intent of this forum was to be. I understood "The Lab" to be primarily for those doing DYI projects or for those interested in finding out something rather specific about audio electronics, speakers etc.  It therefore seems to me that most of DAJ's polls would be better placed in "Audio Central". I also think the thread on modern recording technology, although fascinating, would be better placed in Audio Central, but that's just my two cents worth, and that's all the opinion is worth.

I must admit to having some sympathy for DAJ's point of view however. I think the pendulum has swung a bit too far toward the subjectivist camp in audio and a swing back to a little more objectivity would be a good thing, both for the quality of the audio equipment available, and especially, for the prices of much of that equipment. 

As for the "Now playing" box, I'm sure someone has told you what that's about---it's about why we do this in the first place (I hope), the music we're listening to.

Enjoy!

Thanks, SWG255. I actually didn't mean to espouse one camp or the other. I'm an engineer and music lover, and I even like good sound. Frankly, I think the real problem is the existence of polarized camps called objectivist and subjectivist. Of course, there is no in-between camp, like, let's agree that myrtle wood amplifier blocks open up the sound stage, but only half as much as claimed, and just be friends, man. On the other hand, integrated membership should be possible, because knowledge and objective data tend to inform the subjective listening experience, and vice versa. If there are camps among audio enthusiasts, I think there are three of them, populated by those who believe in sides, those who have decided to integrate, and conciliators who just don't get it. If anyone has a shot at sparking a change, it would be those of us who already know about both areas.

[Occam]

Dunno daj,

Its a problem that certainly isn't going to be resolved by pissing contests, but hopefully, folks can come to some sort of common ground by discussion and empirical evaluation. This was a comment I made in another thread that is, IMO, germane. (with regards to 'break in', the subject of the thread. I'm an agnostic, save for those gosh durn BlackGate caps  )
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=37164.msg332325;topicseen#msg332325

IF cable break in happens, what has been your experience as far as tonal shift?

If cable break-in really happened, and the frequency response really did change over time, then that change could be easily measured and there'd be no more discussion about it.

--Ethan

I believe we have a problem of 2 different perspectives, separated by a common language.

I and many others often 'voice' their systems, not by any topological changes, but simply by substituting  nominally equivalent components. I'll swap cables, opamps, capacitors, etc.... until the overally subjective perception is more to my liking. And I might well describe those changes as 'deeper bass', 'more extended highs', 'stronger midrange', etc.... and I'm well aware that upon measurement of frequency spectra, I'll find absolutely no difference between the original and my preferred configuration. The problem is that those changes are perceived as spectral changes, although to the extent to which I'm able to measure by accessable instrumentation, I can discern no changes whatsoever. But sadly, I am constrained by my perception to describe it as I hear it, while knowing that description is inaccurate, or at least does not correlate with expected measurements. [nor am I willing to engage in that conversation of 'well thats just a tweako bandaid', because when I substitute a specific $6 opamp for a $3 opamp, and my perception of the net result is what was subjectively unlistenable transformed to groovy and mo' betta, thats good enough...]

Heck, I build power conditioners / noise filters for mains power. But seldom do people react with 'I hearing a lower noise floor', rather I typically hear that the bass is more extended and tighter, the treble more (or less) extended, etc....

Sadly, while I know that whatever changes may be wrought by break-in, cable swaps, passive and/or active component changes may not change a spectral analysis, it is unfortunately perceived as such.
Go figure.
FWIW

I consider myself both an objectivist and a subjectivist, but note neither is capitalized.
My major issue with the Subjectivists are that they rarely do any sort of controlled experiments, changing everything en masse, so they don't have a clue as to what is changing what. When a fellow DIYer is available with the same component, I like to be able to do comparisons with only one thing changed.
My issue with the Objectivists is they often show the empirical curiosity of a turnip. Due to the definitive and complete education (which is rarely so), they often decide things via 'thought experiments', when something as simple as a dpdt or 4pdt switch might actually provide some valid information.

[daj]

Dunno daj,

Its a problem that certainly isn't going to be resolved by pissing contests, but hopefully, folks can come to some sort of common ground by discussion and empirical evaluation.

Yes, it is not nearly as easy to get a feel for audio reality as most people seem to think. Many also seem to worry that it is not possible to have a feel for audio relaity and still experience the romance of music and excellent sound.

Here's my verbose version of what I think is your point: To know what one is listening to, one needs to have certain experiences while staying attuned to the markers of both genuine recognition of facts and of illusion. People are hard wired to experience and enjoy illusion, which can be helpful in some areas and not so helpful in others. The stereo effect is a great illusion, but not the sense that one had heard a deepening of the bass and an extension of the highs when a mischief maker like me does an A/A test and pretends it was an A/B test, which many people will hear if you plant the slightest suggestion. Where our capaciity for illusion is a limitation, probably most places in modern life, counteracting it requires us to overcome laziness and habit. What comprises an attunement to the markers that discriminate fact and desirable illusion from fiction and deceptive illusion is not clear to most people. Maybe some blabbing would help clarify it. I hope so, but I am not totally convinced. There's an element of sacrifice that is needed to gain this clarity, and although I think it's much more valuable than what is lost, this is not only rarely obvious, but motivation is going to be hard to come by. Still, I think there must be a systematic approach to integrating the camps. 

Sadly, while I know that whatever changes may be wrought by break-in, cable swaps, passive and/or active component changes may not change a spectral analysis, it is unfortunately perceived as such.
Go figure.
FWIW

I'm sorry, but have you used DBT to verify that?

I consider myself both an objectivist and a subjectivist, but note neither is capitalized.
My major issue with the Subjectivists are that they rarely do any sort of controlled experiments, changing everything en masse, so they don't have a clue as to what is changing what. When a fellow DIYer is available with the same component, I like to be able to do comparisons with only one thing changed.
My issue with the Objectivists is they often show the empirical curiosity of a turnip. Due to the definitive and complete education (which is rarely so), they often decide things via 'thought experiments', when something as simple as a dpdt or 4pdt switch might actually provide some valid information.

Basic scientific method is among a handfull of basic tenets that one must know and appreciate before discussion can be fruitful.

Oh, and sometimes, even a turnip needs a switch.

[aerius]

My issue with the Objectivists is they often show the empirical curiosity of a turnip. Due to the definitive and complete education (which is rarely so), they often decide things via 'thought experiments', when something as simple as a dpdt or 4pdt switch might actually provide some valid information.

Yeah, gotta agree with that one.  All too often they come in with an overly simplified preconceived notion of how things should be and spend all their time & effort trying to impose & defend that view upon others. 

For instance, let's take power cords.  The objectivist (generalizing a bit) says that as long as the conductors are thick enough it won't make a difference at all, a cord is a cord, Ohm's Law, all it does is conduct the power to the gear and so on.  But a power cord isn't just a power cord, it's also an antenna, it'll pick up RFI from the air as well as radiating noise & RF of its own.  Don't believe me?  Hook up a spectrum analyzer and see all the grunge in the kHz to MHz range.  Practically no one mentions that, they just treat a power cord as a simple pure conductor, which it ain't.

[daj]

My issue with the Objectivists is they often show the empirical curiosity of a turnip. Due to the definitive and complete education (which is rarely so), they often decide things via 'thought experiments', when something as simple as a dpdt or 4pdt switch might actually provide some valid information.

Yeah, gotta agree with that one.  All too often they come in with an overly simplified preconceived notion of how things should be and spend all their time & effort trying to impose & defend that view upon others. 

For instance, let's take power cords.  The objectivist (generalizing a bit) says that as long as the conductors are thick enough it won't make a difference at all, a cord is a cord, Ohm's Law, all it does is conduct the power to the gear and so on.  But a power cord isn't just a power cord, it's also an antenna, it'll pick up RFI from the air as well as radiating noise & RF of its own.  Don't believe me?  Hook up a spectrum analyzer and see all the grunge in the kHz to MHz range.  Practically no one mentions that, they just treat a power cord as a simple pure conductor, which it ain't.

I am so glad you mentioned that particular case, aerius. It's a great example of how subtleties of design can produce uneven results that can then be cited by both objectiveists and subjectivists to support their views.

This noise is why there are power filters built into well designed gear that stop much or even most of it from getting in or out. The effect is hundreds or thousands of times greater than what can be accomplished with AC power conductors. Of course, not all gear has this filtering, and in those that do, it may be inadequate under certain conditions or maybe nearly all conditions. And these conditions are likely to be variable at a given site, causing variations in the effects.

Also, a well regulated power supply rejects variations in AC voltage, and a typical "universal" switcher does so to the extent that any voltage between 85V and 265V is fine, and it can hold its output voltage to within 0.5% regardless of the amount or speed of line voltage change. Well designed equipment running its internal circuitry from such a supply can reject this remaining maximum 0.5% voltage fluctuation effectively completely. With gear that has a well regulated supply and adequate power filtering (and spike protection), it does seem pretty clear that the power cord can be considered generic until it gets too small to handle the current without overheating.

With equipment, however, that was designed under idealistic assumptions about the AC power, external measures are almost certainly required. I suppose that in some such cases, the designer has determined that the power will be conditioned externally, but this still leaves open the problem of crosstalk over the power cords between such gear. For instance, the combination of a CD player without power filtering that is plugged into the same outlet as a tube preamp that has a cascode magnetic cartridge gain stage with megahertz bandwidth and an unregulated supply seems likely to suffer audibly from clock injection from the CD player, especially if one or both pieces of gear have suboptimal internal grounding.

Still, although a fancy power cord that mainly comprises conductors in a jacket may be somewhat helpful under these conditions, it is going to have a small effect compared to a power conditioner, especially one that isolates each of its outputs from one another. Of course, under these conditions, if a fancy power cord has a genuine noise filtering network built into it (not just the cable parasitics), then it would be a marked improvement over any gauge of plain conductors, whether cabled, braided, shielded, zig-zagged, or dipped in lanolin.

FWIW, and for those who don't already realize it, while Occam may not agree with all my beliefs on the general subject, he sure knows a lot about power and power conditioners, and is worth asking about it.

[aerius]

With equipment, however, that was designed under idealistic assumptions about the AC power, external measures are almost certainly required. I suppose that in some such cases, the designer has determined that the power will be conditioned externally, but this still leaves open the problem of crosstalk over the power cords between such gear. For instance, the combination of a CD player without power filtering that is plugged into the same outlet as a tube preamp that has a cascode magnetic cartridge gain stage with megahertz bandwidth and an unregulated supply seems likely to suffer audibly from clock injection from the CD player, especially if one or both pieces of gear have suboptimal internal grounding.

Still, although a fancy power cord that mainly comprises conductors in a jacket may be somewhat helpful under these conditions, it is going to have a small effect compared to a power conditioner, especially one that isolates each of its outputs from one another. Of course, under these conditions, if a fancy power cord has a genuine noise filtering network built into it (not just the cable parasitics), then it would be a marked improvement over any gauge of plain conductors, whether cabled, braided, shielded, zig-zagged, or dipped in lanolin.

I think a big problem is that many (or most) manufacturers aren't even aware of these issues, afterall, look at all the power supply designs in gear everywhere where they slap a big-ass capacitor right after a diode bridge, can you say massive current spike and loads of noise?  Even funnier is when they do it in tube gear, hey, let's put a 3,000uF cap after the diode bridge, or gee, how about a 200uF cap right after the tube rectifier?  Nevermind that the tube rectifier datasheet explicitly says "max size for first cap is 20uf, unless the first filter element is a choke", but I digress.

As for filtering out noise, it can be done but it's a pain in the butt, and frankly not too many people do it right.  Ideally you want to minimize the noise being generated by the gear, prevention afterall is always better than the cure.  Unfortunately, see above, not many people do it right.

So I guess what I'm saying is this.  Given today's inconsistently made gear, power cords can make a difference, but not as much as proper filtering nor a nice fully isolated power conditioning for each piece of gear.