Burn in time for the New Tweeters?

tonyb

F1nut wrote: »

The toilet needs flushing.

First, the pipes need to be rodded out.

heiney9

Another one that knows how to use Google and cut and paste but can't/won't experience it for himself.

Sad...................really sad.

H9

ohskigod

jcandy wrote: »

You are exactly 100% at odds with the owner of Harbeth, and 100% at odds with measurements. Do you have a permit to sell snake-oil here?

ah yes, Harbeth. when you want to spend 5000 on a speaker that sounds like you spent 1000, and looks like you spent 350.00

I have no problems being at odds with the guy. I could spend 5000 on a fake certificate that says I own the brooklyn bridge and feel like i got more for the money then a pair of frikken Harbeths......but as I say, it's all subjective

shack

My revelation about burn in for cables came about when I had two identical sets of speaker cables. One was a borrowed pair that had about 4-6 months use on them that were lent to me by a friend. I liked those cables so much I purchased an indentical new pair. While I still had the used ones, I replaced them with new ones (the exact setup). I was EXPECTING them to sound exactly the same. I was wrong. It was like someone had thrown a blanket over the speakers. So much for the "you hear what you think you will hear" theory. I switched the cables back and forth a couple of times and there was a very noticeable difference. I kept the new cables and let them "burn in" and was able to compare them against the originals some time later. The differences had gone away.

I've noticed similar changes with speakers. Whether it is from the electronics or the physical movement...I don't know...I just know it changed for the better.

I tend to believe anything dealing with electronic paths and/or circuits or movement will have some sort of break-in or burn-in period that will create change...either subtle or noticeable.

I am now firmly in the "burn in" camp. If someone wants to know my opinion and/or experience...I am happy to share it with them. If you want to tell me it is my imagination or I'm wrong or that it is "snake oil"...eff you...I don't care.

fishbones

shack wrote: »

I am now firmly in the "burn in" camp.

It's all in your head! :biggrin:

I have come to the realization, after reading some very helpful info copy/pasted on to this thread, that it's not the cables and components that are burning-in, but my brain that is burning-in.

So, the next time I smell rotten sewage somewhere, I'm going to stand at for 100 hours. The first few hours will be tough, cause the gut wrenching stench will cause alot of tearing-up, gagging and puking, but the mind will start to develop blockers for this by the tenth hour and the nose-burning odor will subside into more of a rotten stench smell. After 20 hours of stench and decay, it will slowly turn into more of a wavering rotten garbage smell with only slightly burning to the nose - mainly from my own vomit lying all around me. By 50 hours it will have improved greatly into a strong smell, but with a sweet base to it that will be pleasant to the nose and will bring a smile to my face - from relief because of the puking and tearing earlier. And by 100 hours, I should experience a overriding sense of joy for I will have completely changed my mind about the smell and my brain will realize that what is mistook for rotten sewage, was actually a gust of fresh mountain air blowing through a field of flowers!

On3s&Z3r0s

inspiredsports wrote: »

I have an alternate idea:

Why don't we use a collection of folks who have a better than "reasonable" audio perception, have been listening for thousands of hours per year spanning several decades, and have actually replaced tweeters (as well as drivers, wires, cables, caps, resistors, inductors, power conditioners, reseptacles, breaker boxes and hundreds of components) in numerous models of their own gear.

tonyb wrote: »

Stop it now...useing common sense is forbid in academia.:biggrin:

Actually, if you're involved in scientific research, it's common sense not to let the sample set select itself.

jcandy

heiney9 wrote: »

Another one that knows how to use Google and cut and paste but can't/won't experience it for himself.

Sad...................really sad.

Experience what for myself? Are you under the impression that I read books and don't listen to (or build) anything?

DarqueKnight

Charlie Freak wrote: »

I'm with you jcandy - but on club polk, presenting any silly nonsense such as facts, objective evidence, or measurements is strongly frowned on by the entrenched tweako audio cultist regulars.

Well, I own up to being an entrenched, tweako audio cultist, but I have not noticed that my writings on audio facts, objective evidence and measurements were strongly frowned on by most of our membership.

Charlie Freak wrote: »

I think any reasonable person would agree that listening is very important, or even the most imporant thing in this hobby. The proof is in the pudding.

But surely a person can't be expected to be taken seriously when his 'testing' methodology consists of - changing something in his audio setup, popping in his favourite Pink Floyd CD, and then coming to a forum and waxing poetic about the improved "air, rhythm and pacing"? Especially when his results seem to go against all known laws of physics, electronics, common sense, and previous blind tests by other experienced listeners? It's laughable.

You may be surprised to find out that the people who invented modern stereophonic home audio systems preferred subjective testing methods with trained listeners.

The references given in this thread can provide further insight:

A Survey Of Early Stereophonic System Subjective Evaluation


You should always keep in the forefront of your mind that stereophonic home audio systems were invented so that music lovers could experience a physical and emotional representation of the live concert experience in their homes. They were not invented to serve as fodder for endless debate and demands for proof that people can actually hear what they say they hear from their stereo systems.

Blind tests in audio have been problematic because the tests are usually administered in ways that are unrealistic of the ways that people use audio systems in their homes. In blind medical trials and blind food and beverage trials, medicine and food and beverage are administered under controlled conditions, yet still identical to the way an ordinary consumer would use them. In blind audio trials, the testers typically use one or more elements that hinder the amount of sensory information that reaches the participant. I wrote more on this subject in this thread:

A Historical Overview of Stereophonic Blind Testing


With regard to sensitive hearing, a study done in 1980 by Petri-Larmi et al demonstrated that trained listeners using high quality stereo equipment and high quality recordings were able to discern extremely low levels of transient intermodulation distortion. The audibility threshold in that report was 0.003%. The citation is "Psychoacoustic Detection Threshold of Transient Intermodulation Distortion, by M. Petri-Larmi, M. Otala and J. Lammasniemi. It was published in the March 1980 issue of the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. The abstract is as follows:

"The audible threshold of transient intermodulation distortion (TIM) was determined for the six most sensitive subjects of the previously reported test series of 68 listeners. Improved equipment, carefully controlled listening environment, a digital TIM generator, and five recorded stereophonic music samples were used. The results show that in certain types of passages of music, a trained and sensitive listener can reliably detect extremely low values of distortion. Low distortion values were perceived only as changes in sound character, and not as distortion."

jcandy wrote: »

It is just a given that quantitative methods must fail. That is the smoking gun of delusion.

jcandy wrote: »

Actually, something very much like this is on my to-do list. I am working on some audio projects with much bigger "payoff" now so it will have to wait. What I do will be based on objective measurements, so many here will reject the results out-of-hand when the null hypothesis is recovered.

In more detail, I plan to do an en masse study of the measurable difference in all the "classic" audiophile bits: wire, capacitors, tweeters, power cords, polishing speaker cabs with yak butter, etc.

I am a physicist and its my job to sort out truth from fiction with respect to complicated problems. With practice the ability to do this dispassionately can be cultivated.

I'm glad that you enjoy objective review. It is always a pleasure to make the acquaintance of a comrade-in-arms. In addition to the two articles mentioned above, you may find the following reports of interest.

Loudspeaker Inductor Crosstalk Measurements

Improvements To Modified SDA SRS 1.2TL Crossover

The AI-1 Dreadnought Project Pt.1

Studies On Residential Power Line Noise - Part 2



Before you embark on your research venture, I hope you will take the opportunity to see what has been published in your areas of interest. Many people are not aware that there is a thriving audio engineering community within the IEEE and that a lot of the seemingly "magical" performance claims of audio products are actually based on valid peer-reviewed science. Two good places to start are the archival journals of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.

shack

Raife is certainly more interested in the technical aspects of this hobby than I. While I admire his research and desire to understand the engineering that goes into all things audio...quite frankly it is of little interest to me. I am an end result audio enthusiast. I like what I like...regardless of the engineering. Sometimes the highly technical, lastest and greatest, "best" gear wins out. Sometimes it doesn't. The pleasure I attain when listening is the final arbiter. If a wire or a cap or a component or a tweek or "burn-in" makes the music sound different...then it sounds different...and that difference is factual for me. Better or not is for me to determine...not science...not engineering...not D/B/X testing...not anyone elses opinion. Only the sound that I hear that is pleasing to me. And IMO...I have a damn good ear.

inspiredsports

fishbones wrote: »

. . . so, the next time I smell rotten sewage somewhere, I'm going to stand at for 100 hours. The first few hours will be tough, cause the gut wrenching stench will cause alot of tearing-up, gagging and puking, but the mind will start to develop blockers for this by the tenth hour and the nose-burning odor will subside into more of a rotten stench smell. After 20 hours of stench and decay, it will slowly turn into more of a wavering rotten garbage smell with only slightly burning to the nose - mainly from my own vomit lying all around me. By 50 hours it will have improved greatly into a strong smell, but with a sweet base to it that will be pleasant to the nose and will bring a smile to my face - from relief because of the puking and tearing earlier. And by 100 hours, I should experience a overriding sense of joy for I will have completely changed my mind about the smell and my brain will realize that what is mistook for rotten sewage, was actually a gust of fresh mountain air blowing through a field of flowers!

You might have found your true calling.

inspiredsports

I'd still like to read a copy of jcandy's thesis/dissertation after he so proudly proclaimed his Ph.D.

jcandy

Thanks for a thoughtful, information-filled post. I will not be able to address everything all at once, but let me offer a few comments:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You may be surprised to find out that the people who invented modern stereophonic home audio systems preferred subjective testing methods with trained listeners.

Well, I don't know if that's how I'd describe how we got to where we are now. The "famous" works that most influenced speaker design that I am aware of tend to be the objective type:

1. the Small, Benson, Thiele papers on sealed and vented enclosures (1960s)
2. BBC study on cabinet resonance (1970s)
3. Vanderkooy diffraction model (1990s)
4. Olson's work on cabinets shape and diffraction (1950s)

That's not to say there hasn't been solid research connecting objective measurements with subjective preferences. A notable example of this is the pair of papers by Toole (Toole, JAES 34 (1986) 227) and (Toole, JAES 34 (1986) 323) conducted at the NRC in Canada.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You should always keep in the forefront of your mind that stereophonic home audio systems were invented so that music lovers could experience a physical and emotional representation of the live concert experience in their homes. They were not invented to serve as fodder for endless debate and demands for proof that people can actually hear what they say they hear from their stereo systems.

Agreed.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Blind tests in audio have been problematic because the tests are usually administered in ways that are unrealistic of the ways that people use audio systems in their homes.

See, now this is where I disagree. I think even if there are problems with blind testing, and the application of questionable statistical methods to the results, there are more severe problems with subjective/anecdotal reports.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

With regard to sensitive hearing, a study done in 1980 by Petri-Larmi et al demonstrated that trained listeners using high quality stereo equipment and high quality recordings were able to discern extremely low levels of transient intermodulation distortion. The audibility threshold in that report was 0.003%. The citation is "Psychoacoustic Detection Threshold of Transient Intermodulation Distortion, by M. Petri-Larmi, M. Otala and J. Lammasniemi. It was published in the March 1980 issue of the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. The abstract is as follows:

"The audible threshold of transient intermodulation distortion (TIM) was determined for the six most sensitive subjects of the previously reported test series of 68 listeners. Improved equipment, carefully controlled listening environment, a digital TIM generator, and five recorded stereophonic music samples were used. The results show that in certain types of passages of music, a trained and sensitive listener can reliably detect extremely low values of distortion. Low distortion values were perceived only as changes in sound character, and not as distortion."

Yes. Here are two factoids from that paper: (1) they used the Yamaha NS 1000 M for the testing, (2) one of the 6 test subjects was a physicist. Seriously, the problem with a naive interpretation of their results is that the quoted value is a comparison of rms-to-rms values, which (IMO) artificially inflates the ratio because of the narrow spatial width of the distortion signal. They also quote the same threshold in terms of the peak-to-peak comparison values, and then the result is 3%, not 0.003%. This result is in line with the "garden-variety" results on audibility of distortion, which tend to all cluster at the 1% level. For example, on the Klippel test:

http://www.klippel.de/listeningtest

my daughter and I can repeatably detect distortion up to -24db, but can't at -30db.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I'm glad that you enjoy objective review. It is always a pleasure to make the acquaintance of a comrade-in-arms. In addition to the two articles mentioned above, you may find the following reports of interest.

Loudspeaker Inductor Crosstalk Measurements

Agree 100% with the issue of inductor interaction. This mistake is not uncommon. Screws can also be a problem:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Before you embark on your research venture, I hope you will take the opportunity to see what has been published in your areas of interest.

Too right. I'm a member of the AES, and pay through the nose for journal access :mad:

Thanks again for the informative post, and for pointing me to the Petri-Larmi paper (which I hadn't seen before) as a result.

Charlie Freak

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Blind tests in audio have been problematic because the tests are usually administered in ways that are unrealistic of the ways that people use audio systems in their homes. In blind medical trials and blind food and beverage trials, medicine and food and beverage are administered under controlled conditions, yet still identical to the way an ordinary consumer would use them. In blind audio trials, the testers typically use one or more elements that hinder the amount of sensory information that reaches the participant.

Yes. I've followed the debate for many years. In fact there is a raging debate (click link) with John Atkinson (editor of Stereophile magazine) right now at Hydrogenaudio on this sort of thing. For those who don't know, John Atkinson and Stereophile have been very critical of blind testing in audio over the years.

I agree that blind testing is not perfect, but I also think that many of the objections to blind testing are overblown at best, and a complete smokescreen for deceptive marketing at worst.

ohskigod

well, maybe we can agree to disa..........ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


seriously, some people in this thread just need to get laid. strip clubs, they're out there for a g@damn reason!

ears, ftmfw!!!!! I believe in burn in because I have heard it, want to say it's in my mind? who cares? know what else is in my mind? strip clubs and getting laid apparently by virtue of this post.

I have spoken. PHD = I just wasted 100,000.00 that could have done more good feeding starving children in most cases. some exceptions of course.

BlueFox

ohskigod wrote: »

seriously, some people in this thread just need to get laid. strip clubs, they're out there for a g@damn reason!

Good advice. Also, I have experienced a raise in resonant frequency while researching strip clubs. Then again, maybe I imagined it. :rolleyes:

fishbones

inspiredsports wrote: »

You might have found your true calling.

inspiredsports, Hopefully you were getting my sarcasm?

My point was: To me, sloughing off burn-in, by saying our mind is "creating" this progressive sonic improvement with different pieces of audio equipment just because we want it to - isn't a scientific disprove of anything, but merely a lazy mans way of attempting to deny others the enjoyment of something, that is their right to try. If we are creating this fantasy land, then why would we choose to stop it at 100 or 200 hours? Why wouldn't it just keep getting better and better, 1000 hours, 5000 hours? Why wouldn't I forget all the dam money I spend on equipment, buy a pair of Bose's best speakers at BB, give them about 1000 hours of burn-in (well maybe 200,000) and decide that they sound just as good as Wilson Audio MAXX speakers that cost $100K? Apparently it's all in our heads, right? How about the the example I gave of 1 tweeter replacement on a set of speakers that I had owned for 7 years on one of these threads? Are you going to sit there and argue with me that I'm "hearing burn-in" on just one side of the soundstage now - even after walking up to the speaker to verify it, using both left and right ears, countless times? Deeming, at first, that the new tweeter sounded absolutely horrible and nothing like the one on the right. Speakers I'd owned for 7 years. Same equipment for 7 years also. Nothing was changed but 1 tweeter. Gradual improvements were heard until the left (new) tweeter sounded exactly like the right (unreplaced) one after the 200 hour mark. It's the same thing as saying, if I stand by the sewage long enough, my mind will create it's own fantasy of it smelling like a field of roses. BS. The reason I heard it, is because it exists, not because I want it to happen every time a new piece is inserted in my system.

Though I realize our minds are more powerful than many of us will realize in our lifetimes, I would further that into saying that our minds (and our ears) are also a-lot more powerful (accurate) than some might give them credit (I reference Raife's examples above). We are all aware that human perception throws a big wrench into using us as measurement tools - when we haven't figured out how to measure something, but seems to me the ones that are trying to get us to prove it on here, are merely arguing about something to avoid trying it? How would they explain it to their wives, or friends, or colleagues? You did what? Oh, the rumors at work. Better off to try and argue with a bunch of experienced believers, cause if I can do that, maybe I will keep at arms length the real thing I'm trying to avoid - my fear of it being true, and not being able to verify it with measurements.

I have learned over the years to trust my ears first, equipment second. I don't care how many good specs are in a piece of equipment, or how many guru audio reviewers praise it's god-like sound, or how many forums tell me it's the best thing since sliced bread, if it doesn't sound good to me, it's gone. Some people will naturally argue first, try second, some not try at all. Those not willing to listen for themselves, are living in their own denial. I have experienced it first hand, many have on here. Funny thing about experience, it's the best learning tool there is.

megasat16

fishbones wrote: »

It's all in your head! :biggrin:

I have come to the realization, after reading some very helpful info copy/pasted on to this thread, that it's not the cables and components that are burning-in, but my brain that is burning-in.

So, the next time I smell rotten sewage somewhere, I'm going to stand at for 100 hours. The first few hours will be tough, cause the gut wrenching stench will cause alot of tearing-up, gagging and puking, but the mind will start to develop blockers for this by the tenth hour and the nose-burning odor will subside into more of a rotten stench smell. After 20 hours of stench and decay, it will slowly turn into more of a wavering rotten garbage smell with only slightly burning to the nose - mainly from my own vomit lying all around me. By 50 hours it will have improved greatly into a strong smell, but with a sweet base to it that will be pleasant to the nose and will bring a smile to my face - from relief because of the puking and tearing earlier. And by 100 hours, I should experience a overriding sense of joy for I will have completely changed my mind about the smell and my brain will realize that what is mistook for rotten sewage, was actually a gust of fresh mountain air blowing through a field of flowers!

Well Put! But it's not something I would even want to think about tolerating or even demonstrating what is real or what's in your mind scenario. :biggrin:

fishbones

megasat16 wrote: »

Well Put! But it's not something I would even want to think about tolerating or even demonstrating what is real or what's in your mind scenario. :biggrin:

You're right, I like ohskigod's strip club idea waaay better!

DarqueKnight

jcandy wrote: »

Well, I don't know if that's how I'd describe how we got to where we are now. The "famous" works that most influenced speaker design that I am aware of tend to be the objective type:

My comment was not just limited to loudspeaker design nor was it intended to describe the technological lineage of stereo from inception to the present day. I was referring to the totality of stereophonic audio systems (media/electronics/loudspeakers). While it is true that we have come a long way technologically since the days of Dr. Fletcher, it is also true that many have lost sight of the original purpose of home audio systems. I think it is good to go all the way back to the original thoughts on design goals for stereophonic systems in order to avoid getting sidetracked.

jcandy wrote: »

That's not to say there hasn't been solid research connecting objective measurements with subjective preferences. A notable example of this is the pair of papers by Toole (Toole, JAES 34 (1986) 227) and (Toole, JAES 34 (1986) 323) conducted at the NRC in Canada.

I agree. I am very familiar with Dr. Toole's work and with that of his prot?g?, Dr. Sean Olive. I have corresponded with both of them. I also have an autographed copy of Floyd's excellent "Sound Reproduction" text in my personal library. The Toole study you cite took care to use trained listeners. This is an attribute often missing in blind audio studies.

jcandy wrote: »

See, now this is where I disagree. I think even if there are problems with blind testing, and the application of questionable statistical methods to the results, there are more severe problems with subjective/anecdotal reports.

Misapplication of blind testing to audio actually presents more of a problem because the proponents of such methods purport that their results are applicable and relevant across the broad spectrum of stereophonic experience (e.g. there are no sonic differences in all well designed power amplifiers, there are no sonic differences in cables, etc.). This contrasts with subjective/anecdotal reports which typically are quite frank in emphasizing the variables that can cause another listener, particularly an untrained one, to reach a different conclusion.

jcandy wrote: »

Yes. Here are two factoids from that paper: (1) they used the Yamaha NS 1000 M for the testing, (2) one of the 6 test subjects was a physicist. Seriously, the problem with a naive interpretation of their results is that the quoted value is a comparison of rms-to-rms values, which (IMO) artificially inflates the ratio because of the narrow spatial width of the distortion signal. They also quote the same threshold in terms of the peak-to-peak comparison values, and then the result is 3%, not 0.003%. This result is in line with the "garden-variety" results on audibility of distortion, which tend to all cluster at the 1% level.

Please clarify. (1) Are you saying the Yamaha NS 1000 M was an inappropriate speaker choice for the type of testing done? If so, why? (2) What was your purpose for pointing out that one of the test subjects was a physicist? (3) What was naive about my interpretation of the results? (4) Are you saying that the peak, rather than the rms, threshold is the more important of the two for this study in particular and for psychoacoustic research in general?

jcandy wrote: »

Too right. I'm a member of the AES, and pay through the nose for journal access :mad:

There's no need to pay through the nose, unless you need or want instantaneous access. Since you live in a major city, there should be a public or university library that can get AES papers free of charge through their interlibrary loan service and email the PDF's to you. That is the method I use.

jcandy wrote: »

Thanks again for the informative post, and for pointing me to the Petri-Larmi paper (which I hadn't seen before) as a result.

You are very welcome.

DarqueKnight

jcandy wrote: »

Well, I don't know if that's how I'd describe how we got to where we are now. The "famous" works that most influenced speaker design that I am aware of tend to be the objective type:

My comment was not just limited to loudspeaker design nor was it intended to describe the technological lineage of stereo from inception to the present day. I was referring to the totality of stereophonic audio systems (media/electronics/loudspeakers). While it is true that we have come a long way technologically since the days of Dr. Fletcher, it is also true that many have lost sight of the original purpose of home audio systems. I think it is good to go all the way back to the original thoughts on design goals for stereophonic systems in order to avoid getting sidetracked.

jcandy wrote: »

That's not to say there hasn't been solid research connecting objective measurements with subjective preferences. A notable example of this is the pair of papers by Toole (Toole, JAES 34 (1986) 227) and (Toole, JAES 34 (1986) 323) conducted at the NRC in Canada.

I agree. I am very familiar with Dr. Toole's work and with that of his prot?g?, Dr. Sean Olive. I have corresponded with both of them. I also have an autographed copy of Floyd's excellent "Sound Reproduction" text in my personal library. The Toole study you cite took care to use trained listeners. This is an attribute often missing in blind studies in audio.

jcandy wrote: »

See, now this is where I disagree. I think even if there are problems with blind testing, and the application of questionable statistical methods to the results, there are more severe problems with subjective/anecdotal reports.

Misapplication of blind testing to audio actually presents more of a problem because the proponents of such methods purport that their results are applicable and relevant across the broad spectrum of stereophonic experience (e.g. there are no sonic differences in all well designed power amplifiers, there are no sonic differences in cables, etc.). This contrasts with subjective/anecdotal reports which typically are quite frank in emphasizing the variables that can cause another listener, particularly an untrained one, to reach a different conclusion.

jcandy wrote: »

Yes. Here are two factoids from that paper: (1) they used the Yamaha NS 1000 M for the testing, (2) one of the 6 test subjects was a physicist. Seriously, the problem with a naive interpretation of their results is that the quoted value is a comparison of rms-to-rms values, which (IMO) artificially inflates the ratio because of the narrow spatial width of the distortion signal. They also quote the same threshold in terms of the peak-to-peak comparison values, and then the result is 3%, not 0.003%. This result is in line with the "garden-variety" results on audibility of distortion, which tend to all cluster at the 1% level.

Please clarify. (1) Are you saying the Yamaha NS 1000 M was an inappropriate speaker choice for the type of testing done? If so, why? (2) What was your purpose for pointing out that one of the test subjects was a physicist? (3) What was naive about my interpretation of the results? (4) Are you saying that the peak, rather than the rms, threshold is the more important of the two for this study in particular and for psychoacoustic research in general?

jcandy wrote: »

Too right. I'm a member of the AES, and pay through the nose for journal access :mad:

There's no need to pay through the nose, unless you need or want instantaneous access. Since you live in a major city, there should be a public or university library that can get AES papers free of charge through their interlibrary loan service and email the PDF's to you. That is the method I use.

jcandy wrote: »

Thanks again for the informative post, and for pointing me to the Petri-Larmi paper (which I hadn't seen before) as a result.

You are very welcome.

BlueFox

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I agree. I am very familiar with Dr. Toole's work and with that of his prot?g?, Dr. Sean Olive.

Are these question marks that have recently started appearing in posts the result of the recent forum upgrades? From my perspective, they occur when I use quote marks, or apostrophes, and then copy a MS Word document into the Reply box, but I do not remember this occurring before.

jcandy

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Please clarify. (1) Are you saying the Yamaha NS 1000 M was an inappropriate speaker choice for the type of testing done? If so, why? (2) What was your purpose for pointing out that one of the test subjects was a physicist? (3) What was naive about my interpretation of the results? (4) Are you saying that the peak, rather than the rms, threshold is the more important of the two for this study in particular and for psychoacoustic research in general?

(1) and (2) were just non-serious comments.

(1) The NS 1000 was of course a famous speaker, I thought it was interesting that it was used in this test. I wonder if they bought a new set using their grant money

(2) Physicists like music?

(3) It wasn't a comment about your interpretation; rather, it was a warning about the danger, perhaps, of quoting the number without more explanation.

(4) When the peak-to-peak and rms-to-rms values differ so greatly, one has to ask which is a more appropriate measure. I can give another example when the rms and peak comparisons also differ greatly. Imagine, just at the conclusion of a performance of the 1812 Overture, someone farts so loudly that it resembles a cannot shot. The peak-to-peak ratio of the **** to the overture will be 1, whereas the rms-to-rms will be tiny. The difference is in the time domain.

DarqueKnight

BlueFox wrote: »

Are these question marks that have recently started appearing in posts the result of the recent forum upgrades? From my perspective, they occur when I use quote marks, or apostrophes, and then copy a MS Word document into the Reply box, but I do not remember this occurring before.

They seem to be popping up randomly: "prot?g?" was originally "protege", where the "e's" had accent marks.

I also don't recall this happening before the recent forum upgrade.

DarqueKnight

jcandy wrote: »

(1) and (2) were just non-serious comments.

(1) The NS 1000 was of course a famous speaker, I thought it was interesting that it was used in this test. I wonder if they bought a new set using their grant money

I hope they bought all new audio gear for each principle researcher...for further research purposes of course.

jcandy wrote: »

(2) Physicists like music?

Of course they do. Dr. Harvey Fletcher, the "father of stereophonic sound", was a physicist.

I have some doubts about certain AES mathematicians though.

Charlie Freak

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Blind tests in audio have been problematic because the tests are usually administered in ways that are unrealistic of the ways that people use audio systems in their homes. In blind medical trials and blind food and beverage trials, medicine and food and beverage are administered under controlled conditions, yet still identical to the way an ordinary consumer would use them. In blind audio trials, the testers typically use one or more elements that hinder the amount of sensory information that reaches the participant. I wrote more on this subject in this thread:

A Historical Overview of Stereophonic Blind Testing

I don't have the time to address all of this now, but while reading the link you posted above, I did have some thoughts. I hate to be long winded about it because I'd guess it won't be read, but the post you linked to is fairly massive as well.

In your comments about Mr. Clark's ABX methodology you list what you say are some "primary performance metrics of stereophonic sound systems". The first two items you list are "optimization of soundstage width and depth".

Exactly how do we 'optimize' the soundstage on playback? How do you define what is an improvement? It doesn't seem possible to decide what is the optimal soundstage. I found this article interesting:

http://www.regonaudio.com/What%20Can%20and%20Cannot%20be%20Expected%20from%20Stereo.html

You also listed "sonic realism". I assume by this you mean how closely the playback mimics live music? This is something that I have a lot of experience with, since I listen to live unamplified instruments for hours a day, nearly every day.

I wonder if most audiophiles are even sure what real live instruments sound like, since it's likely that they listen to recorded music *far* more than live music. Of course they might have an orchestra subscription or such, but I'd guess that 95% or more of their listening experience is with recordings. Not to mention many audiophiles don't listen to acoustic instruments at all, and their only real experience with "live" music is through a PA system at a live performance.

But the real question I have is - what does all this talk about metrics have to do with ABX? ABX is only helpful for discovering if an audible difference exists at all, not what a listener prefers. If he is able to reliably discern *any* change in the sound (including all the metrics you listed, and any others he can personally perceive), he will be able to identify X?

Speaking of Tom Nousaine, this article addresses some of the criticisms you have with short term listening. Which is something that John Atkinson and others in the subjective camp tend to harp on quite a lot.

http://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/Flying%20Blind.pdf

PolkClyde

The 200hrs, burn in time, 2/2 rule for the MIT cables. A matter of fact,over 200hrs. Hold up,wait a minute. I just forgot,I have a brand new pair of 1m MIt S3 Cables still in the box.Don't tell me, I have to do this all over again. Good Lawd!

fishbones

Charlie Freak wrote: »

I wonder if most audiophiles are even sure what real live instruments sound like, since it's likely that they listen to recorded music *far* more than live music. Of course they might have an orchestra subscription or such, but I'd guess that 95% or more of their listening experience is with recordings. Not to mention many audiophiles don't listen to acoustic instruments at all, and their only real experience with "live" music is through a PA system at a live performance.

You would have served yourself better to leave this entire paragraph out, since you are completely wrong! A ton of audiophiles (including many on CP) have played or do play instruments. Though I don't claim to be much of a guitar player, I have owned and played one on and off for 20 years. Over the years I have also been friends with musicians (drummers, guitarists) hearing them practice many times in live acoustical home settings. Your blanket statement of assuming most audiophiles have never heard or even touched live acoustical instrument shows some extreme ignorance and also shows how much you exaggerate to try to win a debate. I have heard some unbelievably expensive audio systems and I've never heard one that sounded like an actual instrument was in the room with me, compared to my own experiences with them. I've heard some pretty good representations, but in no way did it make me think it sounds exactly like a live instrument was in the room. I frankly think it's impossible. With all of the ways filtering and compression occurs from the original signal through microphones, wires, mixers, recorder media, storage devices, wires, media recorder devices for public (cd's, records, etc), then into someone's cd/vinyl player, wires, preamp, wires, amp, wires, speakers - projecting in many different acoustical settings of people's homes. Each one of these components having their own character of sound and also quality level of reproducing it. The original signal has been so processed and colorized from all the different components, that by the time it comes out of your speakers there's no way it will sound exactly the same as the original instrument - but that's still the goal. I'm glad that you have so much live acoustical experience, I'm jealous, but making blanket statements about people you don't know to try and disqualify their abilites as a valid technical sonic authority is childish, imo.

yepimonfire

jcandy wrote: »

I have explained the reality of the so-called burn-in issue. As far as loudspeakers that I know of are concerned, the issue is 100% in the mind. It is entirely about acclimatisation. I am so sure of this that I am willing to eat any Harbeth speaker that you or anyone else can demonstrate changes its character after a so-called burn in.

Alan A. Shaw
Designer, owner
Harbeth Audio UK

this

response graphs show little (max of +-1dB) or no deviation in response after a "burn in" period.

FTGV

Keiko wrote: »

How rude! :biggrin:

Keiko wrote: »

WoW! All but 4 posts and such a strong, nonsensical statement. That's some freaky s#!t.

I think you're right, Ben. The circus has indeed come to town.

Keiko wrote: »

I'm guessing these are the latest, anti hi-fi insurgent graduates from the AA troll camp. The best there are! :rolleyes:

C'mon bro, might as well have a little fun with them.

Keiko wrote: »

I call BS on this. Show me one example where any member has posted anything to this effect in a negative manner, Freak.

Keiko wrote: »

Yeah, just what I thought. Listed!





Yup, just more useless trolls with **** to contribute. Don't like the way we roll here then why else would they hang around. :rolleyes:

Keiko wrote: »

Your troll permit has expired. **** listed!

Keiko wrote: »

Larry nailed it on the head. These **** clowns aren't new here and know exactly what their trying to instigate. Best not to give them the satisfaction. Let 'em jerkoff on themselves.

Keiko wrote: »

Keiko wrote: »

This is for our newest, bestest boy, Charlie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYHxGBH6o4M

Keiko wrote: »

And let's not forget jcandy. Our other bestest buddy 'ere to enlighten us with all his infinite wisdom as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr_ZHvY3no8

Have a nice day. I know I am. :biggrin:

Keiko wrote: »

Pathetic

Keiko wrote: »

The only 'snake oil' I've noticed lately is from couple of spewing grease balls that have slithered their way in.

Keiko wrote: »

Kudos to wikipedia & google for graduating another Ph.D.

Brilliant contributions.

FTGV

Kinko wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Your welcome ,I thought I would take the time to hi lite your impressive body of work.


btw.there is a trojan associated with the first pic in post#90.You should be more careful of where you source your images from.