Burn in time for the New Tweeters?

inspiredsports

fishbones wrote: »

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.

This is a valid point. Even if you don't try, it's hard to get very far away from live music.

I guess by definition I was a "professional" musician my senior year in high school because we "played out" and charged a couple hundred bucks .

Beyond that (but still owning and playing guitar) it's been the piano in the living room, three kids in band since 5th grade and 2 going on to march in college, various large-venue and small-hall live shows, live musicians at church, weddings, etc., etc.

I believe most Polk owners have a similar resume, being relatively close to live music.

jcandy

Speaking of redeeming value, Keiko, are your posts in this thread representative of your 11,000+ posts? If so, a ban seems in order.

DarqueKnight

Charlie Freak wrote: »

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.

As you've noticed, I can be rather long winded myself. Don't worry about other people's short attention span.

Charlie Freak wrote: »

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 wish you had read my article on subjective evaluation first. It provides a good overview of the performance goals of stereophonic reproduction.

Good sterephonic playback is supposed to create a three dimensional illusion of sound images suspended in space. The image rendering can be no better than what was mixed by the recording engineer. Therefore, we should use playback equipment that is able to reproduce what the recording engineer created. This is the optimal situation.

Charlie Freak wrote: »

I found this article interesting:

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

The most interesting part to me was that the author did not include a discussion of the effects of interaural crosstalk, which is the basic flaw in two channel stereophonic reproduction that hinders true spatial rendering.

For a thorough technical overview of the effects of interaural crosstalk, consult Floyd Toole's book "Sound Reproduction", section 9.1.3, p. 151. For a thorough technical overview of a loudspeaker system that is specifically designed to significantly reduce the effects of interaural crosstalk, consult Matthew Polk's paper "Polk's SDA Speakers - Designed-In Stereo", published in the June 1984 issue of Audio magazine, pp. 38-41.

On page 227 of Toole's book, he mentions the Carver Sonic Holography system and Polk's SDA-1 loudspeaker as two methods of addressing the interaural crosstalk problem.

This statement bears further scrutiny:

Second, actual images, as opposed to ambience, that appear outside the speakers in stereo playback cannot be solid, realistic, and truly convincing. Such images are attained by making some of the ear/brain's several localization mechanisms override others. This is intrinsically a distortion of the "imaging" of real events. Far from being desirable, the existence of outside-the-speaker images is an infallible sign that unnatural artifacts have been introduced in the recording/microphoning process. Again, you may like the result, but it cannot be an actual reconstruction of the original event.

First, we need to use some common sense and realize that we cannot faithfully reconstruct the original event. We can only get reasonably close to the sound "pictue" painted by the recording engineer. Therefore, if the recording engineer placed sounds far to the right, far to the left, and far in the back, all with sounds in the center, then we should want to hear that.

The loudspeakers used in home audio systems simply cannot faithfully reproduce all the wavelengths, with their acompanying pressure signatures (tactile sensations) that are generated by real musical instruments and voices. There are also deficiencies in recording equipment. Therefore, absolute realism is an unobtainable goal.

People speak of photographic realism, but can a lifesize photograph actually be realistic enough to fool a person into thinking that they are looking at a real person rather than a two dimensional representation of a person? Of course not. The "realism" of a sharp photograph with accurate color balance will still pale when compared to the real thing...but it can get reasonably close if certain optical distortions are minimized. Likewise, stereophonic reproduction can get reasonably close to a live musical event if certain aural distortions are minimized.

Charlie Freak wrote: »

You also listed "sonic realism". I assume by this you mean how closely the playback mimics live music?

Yes. The degree of realism obtained will depend on the complexity of the original event, the recording equipment and techniques used and the quality of playback equipment and the playback room environment.

I have had many musician visitors to my home comment on how "realistic" my two channel system sounds when reproducing a simply mic'ed jazz small group.

Charlie Freak wrote: »

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.

Great. I am a saxophone player.

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.

The expectation of the inventor of home stereo systems, Dr. Harvey Fletcher, was that the users of these systems would be music lovers and that they would have some familiarity with the sound of real instruments and voices. I don't know how many people actually fall into that category today, especially with the dearth of good venues for live music.

I would also go so far as to say that many, maybe most, people who own stereo systems don't know how to properly set them up and they don't even know that there should be a phantom center image. As Mr. Nousaine mentioned in the article you referenced and as been demonstrated in my personal investigations, some people have to learn to hear stereo imaging.

Charlie Freak wrote: »

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?

ABX is widely used in the evaluation of stereophonic equipment and systems. However, this testing protocol is inappropriate, inadequate and inaccurate for multi-dimensional stimuli such as stereophonic sound. I elaborate more on this here: Further Thoughts On ABX Testing Of Stereophonic Audio Systems

Charlie Freak wrote: »

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

I am very familiar with Mr. Nousaine's work. He concluded the article you referenced with:

"Humans are most sensitive to a stimulus when first exposed to it and can more reliably discern differences in sound quality by immediate comparisons than through long-term exposure."

For simple unidimension sensory stimuli, Mr. Nousaine's conclusion is correct. However, sterophonic music, like food, is multi-dimensional in character. There is simply too much going on in a sterephonic sound stage for a subject to take it all in during a short interval of 20 to 90 seconds.

A thing should be tested in a manner representative of the way it will actually be used.

Tell me, if you can, how is it possible for a person to assess differences in image clarity, image position, image weight, sound stage depth, sound stage width, sound stage height, bass articulation, etc., etc., etc. in 30 or even 90 seconds? I don't even want to get into the temporal differences (real and apparent timing of music) that can exist between two pieces of gear.

DarqueKnight

yepimonfire wrote: »

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

Response graphs don't tell the whole story. I was able to measure, with an oscilloscope, differences in noise characteristics of cables and inductors during a burn in process.

Improvements To Modified SDA SRS 1.2TL Crossover

Audiodharma Cable Cooker Review

F1nut

Originally Posted by jcandy
a ban seems in order.

I agree, you need to go.

jcandy

F1nut wrote: »

I agree, you need to go.

So walk the walk and report me.

inspiredsports

F1nut wrote: »

I agree, you need to go.

I'm really open minded and trying hard not to agree, . . . . but, well . . . I'll give it one more day.

It's almost like a Rain Man situation, exquisitely brilliant with a box of match sticks, but then . . . covering the EARS and screaming.

inspiredsports

DarqueKnight wrote: »

. . . tell me, if you can, how is it possible for a person to assess differences in image clarity, image position, image weight, sound stage depth, sound stage width, sound stage height, bass articulation, etc., etc., etc. in 30 or even 90 seconds? I don't even want to get into the temporal differences (real and apparent timing of music) that can exist between two pieces of gear . . .

Exactly. I am consistently baffled how otherwise sincere and intelligent posters simply miss this entire concept!

BlueFox

inspiredsports wrote: »

Exactly. I am consistently baffled how otherwise sincere and intelligent posters simply miss this entire concept!

At this point I am very familiar with the sound of my two-channel system, and its new iPod dock (Wadia 171). I currently have all my gear, except the Wadia, on Mapleshade brass footers for vibration elimination. As I added the footers to each piece of gear there was an obvious, audible improvement. How I know this is because I was very familiar with how it sounded before adding the footers.

Anyway, last night it occurred to me I have an unused set of Triplepoint footers so I put them under the Wadia. The Wadia is so light it could not stay firmly balanced on the footers in the default manner, so I turned them upside down so that the triple points are on the surface of the rack, and a single point touches the bottom of the Wadia. I also added a 2lb brass weight to the top front of the Wadia, and a 1 lb brass weight on the back of the Wadia.

Yikes! What an improvement. The sound opened up by what appeared to be an order of magnitude. I could not believe it, and this is only affecting the digital signal between the Wadia and the DAC. I suspect the SPL level measurement would be the same before and after adding the footers. Yet, if I take the footers out the sound becomes duller, and slightly less precise, or detailed.

The point is, no system is perfect, and the sound can be affected by an infinite number of factors. The human ear, and the brains interpretation of its hearing, is very precise, and can detect even the smallest of changes. Of course these changes are measureable since they occur. The problem is knowing what to measure. Until science does have definitive quantum level measurements for both physical and biological phenomena, I will let my ears do the work, and my brain will judge it.

DarqueKnight

inspiredsports wrote: »

I am consistently baffled how otherwise sincere and intelligent posters simply miss this entire concept!

Yes, but aren't you fascinated by how the audio naysayer cultists relentlessly come up with tests that purport to prove that audiophiles are a aurally hallucinogenic and delusional lot, but really, all they ever prove is that:

(1) They are hopelessly, abysmally and dysfunctionally ignorant of how stereo works.

(2) They are hopelessly, abysmally and dysfunctionally ignorant of how to chose an appropriate test for a specific task.


Such good testing.

---

You know I love a good lie, but even I wouldn't dare suggest that an
ENTIRE stereophonic sound stage can be evaluated in 30 seconds or less.

inspiredsports

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Yes, but aren't you fascinated by how the audio naysayer cultists relentlessly come up with tests that purport to prove that audiophiles are a aurally hallucinogenic and delusional lot, but really, all they ever prove is that:

(1) They are hopelessly, abysmally and dysfunctionally ignorant of how stereo works.

(2) They are hopelessly, abysmally and dysfunctionally ignorant of how to chose an appropriate test for a specific task.


Such good testing.

---

You know I love a good lie, but even I wouldn't dare suggest that an
ENTIRE stereophonic sound stage can be evaluated in 30 seconds or less.

Yes, I am consistently baffled.

Testing, great, no problem. But my humble opinion is that BOTH the Scope and Granularity of what we can measure is perhaps behind what the ear can accomplish by a magnitude of 100.

I've always believed frequency response testing is like a compass, pointing us in the correct direction. I'm guessing someday we will have the myriad tools needed to create predict excellent synergy from outlet to driver without having to spend as much time listening and experimenting.

Charlie Freak

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Tell me, if you can, how is it possible for a person to assess differences in image clarity, image position, image weight, sound stage depth, sound stage width, sound stage height, bass articulation, etc., etc., etc. in 30 or even 90 seconds? I don't even want to get into the temporal differences (real and apparent timing of music) that can exist between two pieces of gear.

I completely agree about this, as do most of the posters who've quoted you on that point. 90 seconds would be far to less for me. I own many guitars and often spent weeks with them thinking about the sound, pondering how it fit into the nuances of my technique, etc. I take my sound *very* seriously, as I'm sure you do as a musician. So from that view, clearly 90 seconds to judge sound quality is absurd.

I think Mr. Nousaine may sometimes overstate his position in an attempt to bolster his view. We're all guilty of that at times. I know I am. However, in the article I linked, the subjects had unlimited time, and the last person took 13 weeks to submit his results!

On the other hand, I believe you're not being totally balanced on this. There is *nothing* about ABX testing that says that each individual trial should be 30 or 90 seconds. In fact, depending on the situation, a person could spend 20 weeks, months, or even years, to do 20 trials if he wants to. Certainly, in some situations, economic and time constraints play a factor but those same exact constraints exist in sighted tests as well?

For example when testing the differences between mp3 vs lossless. There are no economic or time constraints involved. A person can transcode the fies for free and spend as much time as he wants to compare the files before making his choices. In other cases, a store may allow a person to audition certain components in his own home for 30 days or more with a no-questions-asked return policy.

Of course this is not always the case, but pretending that all ABX tests are 30 - 90 seconds is dishonest and amounts to a straw man.

I was looking at some bookmarks earlier, and came across this one, and I think it provides some food for thought. This is from J. Gordon Holt (founder of Stereophile magazine):

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/

Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel. For the record: I never, ever claimed that measurements don't matter. What I said (and very often, at that) was, they don't always tell the whole story. Not quite the same thing.

DarqueKnight

Charlie Freak wrote: »

However, in the article I linked, the subjects had unlimited time, and the last person took 13 weeks to submit his results!

You're impressed by this? To me, it means absolutely nothing! A subject could have kept the music sample in his/her possession for 10 years and not spent one micro-nanosecond listening to it...right?

Charlie Freak wrote: »

On the other hand, I believe you're not being totally balanced on this. There is *nothing* about ABX testing that says that each individual trial should be 30 or 90 seconds.

I agree. But Nousaines article seems to indicate that short intervals are preferred among adherents of the audio ABX religion doesn't it?

Charlie Freak wrote: »

In fact, depending on the situation, a person could spend 20 weeks, months, or even years, to do 20 trials if he wants to. Certainly, in some situations, economic and time constraints play a factor but those same exact constraints exist in sighted tests as well?

OK. Fair enough. Perhaps you're right. I might be a bit unbalanced on this. Please understand that my unbalance was caused by certain information I could not find in Mr. Nousaine's "Flying Blind" article and by previous readings of his work.

Since you want me to take this article seriously, I require further information. Please tell me, if you know, the following:

1. The title of the musical selection, Joan Baez singing "Diamonds and Rust" is given. What I did not find was the length of the selection provided to the 16 subjects.

1a. Were the subjects provided the entire song or just a snippet?

2. The length of time the subjects kept the CD-R discs is given. What I did not find was data pertaining to the length of time the subjects actually spent LISTENING the music.

2a. Two subjects kept discs for 13 weeks. How much time did each subject actually spend listening to the discs? It is unfortunately true that only the subjects know for sure isn't it?

2b. Don't you find it highly suspicious that the subjects were not instructed to keep accurate logs of their listening time...since this is a study which is "making a case against long term listening"?

2c. What assurance do we have that any of the subjects spent any time at all listening to the discs at home?

3. Why was this particular Joan Baez song chosen? Does it have some particular notoriety for good recording quality?

4. In view of the deficiencies noted in items 1-3, please explain why this article should be taken seriously in any kind of context, scientific or otherwise. Do you really think that appropriate experimental control was exercised in the major portion of this study?

5. Please explain how the Nousaine article is pertinent to the evaluation of stereophonic performance parameters.

Charlie Freak wrote: »

Of course this is not always the case, but pretending that all ABX tests are 30 - 90 seconds is dishonest and amounts to a straw man.

Well, in view of the deficiencies noted above, I don't think I am the one being dishonest. I will retract this statement if you can provide documentation that the subjects in Mr. Nousaine's "Flying Blind" study actually listened at home for over 90 seconds, or even listened at home at all.

If you have other documentation that the typical ABX audio test uses longer evaluation times than the 30 to 90 seconds I have often seen in the literature, I will be happy to review it and revise my views accordingly.

You accuse me of making dishonest straw man arguments, but you seem to be the one grasping for straws.

Charlie Freak wrote: »

I was looking at some bookmarks earlier, and came across this one, and I think it provides some food for thought. This is from J. Gordon Holt (founder of Stereophile magazine):

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/

Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel. For the record: I never, ever claimed that measurements don't matter. What I said (and very often, at that) was, they don't always tell the whole story. Not quite the same thing.

I have no problem with blind tests per se. I have consistently complained about the way blind tests are administered in audio trials.

Charlie Freak

There are obviously a lot of problems with this "study". It's very informal, and wouldn't stand up to peer review (neither would the alternative subjective method you prefer)... and you've spent a lot of time (rightly so) attacking the idea that there is no proof that they spent more than 90 seconds listening to any of the samples, but isn't the important point that they could spend as much time as they personally felt was necessary? Isn't that exactly how a subjective review works? They listen for several days, weeks or months until they feel satisfied to write a review. I've never seen any member of the audio press log his listening sessions either, like you describe. Shouldn't this informal, relaxed approach actually be more palatable to you?

Isn't it odd for you to attack this informal blind test for not standing up to scientific scrutiny while at the same time you endorse a method of 'testing' that is even far worse in standing up to scrutiny? (Actually I'm not sure you do endorse purely subjective listening, so if I'm off base with that comment, I'm sorry.)

And yes, I would be impressed if a person spent 13 weeks seriously auditioning a piece of equipment to determine if he could hear an audible difference. Clearly even if he finally found something after all that time, the likelihood that it would be a glaring difference is very low. I think the main thrust of his article is pretty much on-target - that most obvious differences would be heard very quickly. Extremely subtle things could take quite a bit more time. I have often noticed things only after several listenings because perhaps I was listening very intently to the singer, and missed the fact that the high-hat was badly smeared, etc. I'm just telling you that I'm mostly in agreement with you here. It can really take some time and a lot of concentration to hear very subtle differences.

Generally the way ABX is used when testing codecs is that people listen, listen, listen, for as long as they like. Weeks, months, whatever. Then when they think they may have heard something that sounds "wrong". They will stop and attempt to ABX that particular passage against the original. This, to me, seems like a very reasonable approach.

This can be done easily at home with a lot of hardware too? For example if a friend tells me to check out some new cables. I can hook them up, listen all day long, or as long as he'll let me keep them. If I think I've found a difference that is revealed with a certain recording, I double-check myself by having my wife switch them out a few times while I listen.

That last step is critical. It's critical to me anyway. I think if a person is honest with himself, and he works hard for his money, he'll admit that it's important for him too.

I really don't think we're very far apart in our views. My views are not as extreme as you might think. I'm just railing against a certain group of regulars (not ALL regulars) here who *flat-out* reject that measurements or blind testing can tell us *anything*.

megasat16

Charlie Freak wrote: »

There are obviously a lot of problems with this "study". It's very informal, and wouldn't stand up to peer review (neither would the alternative subjective method you prefer)... and you've spent a lot of time (rightly so) attacking the idea that there is no proof that they spent more than 90 seconds listening to any of the samples, but isn't the important point that they could spend as much time as they personally felt was necessary? Isn't that exactly how a subjective review works? They listen for several days, weeks or months until they feel satisfied to write a review. I've never seen any member of the audio press log his listening sessions either, like you describe. Shouldn't this informal, relaxed approach actually be more palatable to you?

I am not trying to interrupt an ongoing discussion between you and DK but I like to answer about your above statement.

I have a wide variety of gears and speakers that I listened to. I neither care about the value or cost associated with them nor have the desire to keep/buy/sell the gears based on the cost. I just keep them so I can rotate the gears like what most Tube aficionado rotates tubes.

The so called (subjective) test you mentioned, I can't pickup difference between 30s - 90s. But if I listened to about 5-30 minutes, I can tell which gear has a better bass, sharper highs or a more realistic vocal. This without any of the AB or ABX involved. It's not even at a high SPL volume. It's at very comfortable volume and all I do is using the well familiar (better to described as remembered) music and change only one gear at a time (keeping everything else the same).

So, all I am saying is that you don't need to spend a few weeks or months to evaluate gears and making (subjective) reviews.

DarqueKnight

Charlie Freak wrote: »

There are obviously a lot of problems with this "study". It's very informal, and wouldn't stand up to peer review (neither would the alternative subjective method you prefer)...

Charlie Freak wrote: »

Isn't it odd for you to attack this informal blind test for not standing up to scientific scrutiny while at the same time you endorse a method of 'testing' that is even far worse in standing up to scrutiny?

Charlie Freak wrote: »

(Actually I'm not sure you do endorse purely subjective listening, so if I'm off base with that comment, I'm sorry.)

With regard to your misconceptions about me and the membership here, you are about as far off base as the distance from the sun to the next galaxy.

I will address your comments later today when I have more time. I know some of our members are roaring with laughter and chomping at the bit to rebut your "observations", but since your comments were directed primarily at me, I ask that others not clutter up the thread with other responses until I have the opportunity to fully respond.

Thank you for your consideration.

DarqueKnight

Charlie Freak wrote: »

There are obviously a lot of problems with this "study".

Then why did you submit it for consideration? Were you aware of the gross, glaring scientific deficiencies in Mr. Nousaine's article before I pointed them out?

Charlie Freak wrote: »

It's very informal, and wouldn't stand up to peer review (neither would the alternative subjective method you prefer)...

My so-called "alternative subjective method" did stand up to rigorous peer review. My subjective evaluation methodology was published in the December 2010 issue of the Journal of Sensory Studies. I discussed it in this thread: Notice Of Sensory Science Journal Publication.

Charlie Freak wrote: »

...and you've spent a lot of time (rightly so) attacking the idea that there is no proof that they spent more than 90 seconds listening to any of the samples, but isn't the important point that they could spend as much time as they personally felt was necessary?

No. The important point is that an ABX cultist, who claims to promote rigorous and accurate scientific audio evaluation procedure, sought to invalidate a proven methodology using ship shod procedures that were tantamount to faith-based belief, wishful thinking and voodoo. I thought audio ABX'ers supposed were sticklers for strict scientific procedure?

Charlie Freak wrote: »

Isn't that exactly how a subjective review works? They listen for several days, weeks or months until they feel satisfied to write a review.

There is much more involved than that, but I'll leave that to you to figure out.

Charlie Freak wrote: »

I've never seen any member of the audio press log his listening sessions either, like you describe. Shouldn't this informal, relaxed approach actually be more palatable to you?

No sir. I am an advocate of critical documentation procedures...even for subjective reviews.

The author of this "informal, relaxed approach" is (mis)representing that he has "scientifically" invalidated long-term listening methodology for audio evaluations, therefore much is expected of him regarding documentation and experimental control.

The thing you don't seem to grasp is that an audio reviewer at an audio magazine is just giving his/her subjective opinion of what a piece of gear sounded like to his/her ears with his/her equipment in his/her room. In the main, they are not representing themselves as absolute authorities on audio equipment evaluation. Do you know of any reviewer at any of the established, reputable audio publications who is representing his/her evaluation methodology as the end all/be all?

You mock us as being...

Charlie Freak wrote: »

entrenched tweako audio cultist regulars

...yet, you go and grab a purportedly "scientific" article that actually requires a religious leap of faith to accept its dubious methodology and absurd conclusion which flies in the face of established human sensory science.

Charlie Freak wrote: »

Isn't it odd for you to attack this informal blind test for not standing up to scientific scrutiny while at the same time you endorse a method of 'testing' that is even far worse in standing up to scrutiny?

Nope. It actually seems that the "oddballs" are all on your side of the court...and such big balls they are. My "far worse" audio evaluation method has withstood scientific scrutiny and actually conforms to proven scientific principles of human sensory perception, namely:

1. A thing must be tested in a manner representative of how it will actually be used.

2. Things which are evaluated on the basis of sensory stimulation must be evaluated in a way that does not prevent or diminish relevant sensory information from reaching the subject.

Charlie Freak wrote: »

(Actually I'm not sure you do endorse purely subjective listening, so if I'm off base with that comment, I'm sorry.)

If I'm not the biggest measurement freak on Club Polk, I certainly rank in the top 1/2 of 1%! I provided a few of my audio measurement reports in this thread. Obviously you missed them, so I will restate.

These were given in post 147, page 5 of this thread:

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


This one was given in post 176 page 6 of this thread:

Audiodharma Cable Cooker Review

Charlie Freak wrote: »

I would be impressed if a person spent 13 weeks seriously auditioning a piece of equipment to determine if he could hear an audible difference. Clearly even if he finally found something after all that time, the likelihood that it would be a glaring difference is very low. I think the main thrust of his article is pretty much on-target - that most obvious differences would be heard very quickly.

You don't seem to realize that there could be many glaring differences that a subject is not trained to realize. Even your hero, Tom Nousaine, stated on page 28 of his "Flying Blind" article that:

"...many people have to learn to hear stereo imaging, because they are not aware that recorded sound has a spatial character or that this might be an important aspect of audio system performance."

Therefore, an untrained subject could spend years evaluating a stereo component and not pick up on glaring differences simply because they didn't know what to listen for.

Question: Please tell me, how many audio ABX trials for stereophonic audio have you read were there was appropriate discussion of important stereophonic performance parameters such as imaging and sound stage dimensions?

Charlie Freak wrote: »

Generally the way ABX is used when testing codecs is that people listen, listen, listen, for as long as they like. Weeks, months, whatever. Then when they think they may have heard something that sounds "wrong". They will stop and attempt to ABX that particular passage against the original. This, to me, seems like a very reasonable approach.

Oh, now you want to talk about evaluating codecs? If that is what you are into, the DIYaudio forum would be a better place for you. This is a forum primarily about two channel stereo, multichannel home theater and car audio.

I provided a link for you to an article I wrote on the application of ABX blind testing to stereo system evaluation. One of the first things I said was:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

It is true that some types of audio systems are well suited for blind and double-blind A/B or A/B/X type tests. A/B and A/B/X tests are useful in scenarios when the two audio signals being compared are simple in nature. For example, telephone company engineers have routinely used, and continue to use, A/B and A/B/X tests to evaluate improvements in voice circuit quality. However, we must realize and understand that a test that is suitable for one type of audio system might not be suitable for another. It is worth noting that the same company (the Bell Telephone System) that was responsible for the invention and implementation of telephone service was the same company that was responsible for the invention and implementation of home stereophonic audio systems. It is even more interesting to note that while A/B and A/B/X tests were found to be appropriate for evaluating voice quality improvements on bandwidth-limited telephone circuits, subjective, non-blind listening tests based on careful listening, evaluator training and realistic home listening conditions were the scientific standards for the evaluation of stereophonic audio systems.

As I have documented previously, the ABX protocol is not suitable for multi-dimensional sensory stimuli such as a stereophonic sound field. Using ABX for these types of sensory stimuli typically leads to absurd results.

Charlie Freak wrote: »

I really don't think we're very far apart in our views. My views are not as extreme as you might think. I'm just railing against a certain group of regulars (not ALL regulars) here who *flat-out* reject that measurements or blind testing can tell us *anything*.

I have been an active member of this forum for nearly ten years. I can't think of a SINGLE regular member who *flat out* rejects what measurements and blind testing can tell us.

What we do reject, Mr. Freak, is the misapplication of inappropriate testing methodology to stereophonic audio systems. This is a concept that those who like to mock and (mis)characterize us as entrenched tweako audio cultists cannot seem to grasp.

For example, a few months ago, a new member reported some measurements on the SDA 2B. Some of the members took exception to the measurements not because they were measurements, but because accuracy of the measurements was questionable. The measurements did not appear to fully consider the unconventional properties of the speakers that sometimes require unconventional testing procedures. That new member then ran off to another forum asking if we were some type of *cult* because we did not graciously and gratefully accept his "new truth" without reservation.

Charlie Freak

fishbones wrote: »

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 agree with you. I wonder if two channel stereo is mostly tapped-out in that regard. I know Bob Carver and some others have made statements to that effect, and seem to think that DSP and multichannel is the way forward. I don't really know, I don't have the technical background to say much about it.

On the other hand. The majority of pop recordings don't even have this goal in mind (recreating a live event), and in many cases it's a very pleasant thing to listen to, even though it doesn't sound like anything that you could ever hear from live music.

Charlie Freak

megasat16 wrote: »

I am not trying to interrupt an ongoing discussion between you and DK but I like to answer about your above statement.

I have a wide variety of gears and speakers that I listened to. I neither care about the value or cost associated with them nor have the desire to keep/buy/sell the gears based on the cost. I just keep them so I can rotate the gears like what most Tube aficionado rotates tubes.

The so called (subjective) test you mentioned, I can't pickup difference between 30s - 90s. But if I listened to about 5-30 minutes, I can tell which gear has a better bass, sharper highs or a more realistic vocal. This without any of the AB or ABX involved. It's not even at a high SPL volume. It's at very comfortable volume and all I do is using the well familiar (better to described as remembered) music and change only one gear at a time (keeping everything else the same).

So, all I am saying is that you don't need to spend a few weeks or months to evaluate gears and making (subjective) reviews.

It's not really clear to me exactly what you're saying here. But I definitely agree with the idea that differences can be heard without the use of blind testing.

Also, I agree that 30-90 seconds is far too less to analyze complicated stuff. Our brains are not very good at listening to multiple things at once. Like I said in the previous post, if I'm listening to the singer, I may totally miss an obvious difference in the high-hat, or the bass line, or how the stereo image presents itself, or whatever.

If I understand you right, I agree that you probably don't need weeks or months. Although you might find some tiny difference after all that time, it's unlikely that it would be very significant.

Like everyone else, I have a setup that is my main (reference) system. And I have recordings that I know well. So if I switch some gear, and listen to those recordings, I might become convinced that something sounds different. Then I'll zero-in on that and listen again and try to figure out exactly what it is I think is different, etc. Then maybe switch back the "reference" gear and focus my attention on the same portion of the sound where I thought the difference was (image width, bass extension, whatever). It sounds like this is what you do too? I have no problem with that.

Sometimes it's just really obvious, and I don't feel any need at all to ABX it, nor would I expect anyone else to.

The only thing I have a beef with is situations where all logic, measurements, and common sense seem to indicate there should be no audible difference, and someone will refuse to back-up their claims with a blind test.

Charlie Freak

DarqueKnight wrote: »

What we do reject, Mr. Freak, is the misapplication of inappropriate testing methodology to stereophonic audio systems. This is a concept that those who like to mock and (mis)characterize us as entrenched tweako audio cultists cannot seem to grasp.

There's a lot of stuff to talk about here DK. I've tried to carefully read every thing you've written, and linked to with an open mind, and I still disagree with the crux of your argument which seems to be the above quote.

This debate has been raging for decades, and many highly educated people have come to different conclusions than you have.

I really don't have the will, or the time to address every single thing you've said and written on the topic, but I think that if anyone is still reading this, it may have inspired them look deeper into this, and they can draw their own conclusions.

Charlie Freak

@DarqueKnight:

I should also say that I appreciate the effort you've put into your posts, and I don't want you to think I'm dismissing everything you've said. You presented your views in a very logical thoughtful way.

The tone of your last post was decidedly more aggressive, but this is a topic we're both passionate about, and I understand your frustration.

RuSsMaN

Charlie Freak wrote: »

I really don't have the will, or the time to address every single thing you've said and written on the topic

Come on, don't loose steam now! Suck it up, you started it, we're sitting by waiting for more enlightenment, more information! You can't walk away now, really.

Cheers,
Russ

BeefJerky

RuSsMaN wrote: »

Come on, don't loose steam now! Suck it up, you started it, we're sitting by waiting for more enlightenment, more information! You can't walk away now, really.

Cheers,
Russ

Agreed 100%! I'm getting my popcorn ready, so please don't disappoint.

jcandy

RuSsMaN wrote: »

Come on, don't loose steam now! Suck it up, you started it, we're sitting by waiting for more enlightenment, more information! You can't walk away now, really.

+1 (plus one)

DarqueKnight

Charlie Freak wrote: »

I really don't have the will, or the time to address every single thing you've said and written on the topic, but I think that if anyone is still reading this, it may have inspired them look deeper into this, and they can draw their own conclusions.

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, c'mon now. Don't be like that. I must admit to being baffled (rather than frustrated) by your comment above as you seemed to so anxious to discuss this topic as demonstrated by your somewhat aggressive post below:

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.

Seriously, although you meant it as an insult, I really do accept the label of "tweako audio cultist regular". I'm considering adding it to my forum signature line. However, I also like facts, objective evidence and (huge drum roll) measurements...and I manage to fit in very well here. Perhaps we, as a group, are not as adverse to true audio science as you thought.

Charlie Freak wrote: »

The tone of your last post was decidedly more aggressive,...

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but I wouldn't call my last post "aggressive". I was just enthusiastically addressing your points. Your comment I quoted above is what I consider "aggressive".

Charlie Freak wrote: »

...but this is a topic we're both passionate about, and I understand your frustration.

Nope. Not frustrated at all. I have no reason to be. I'm was just chatting with you about subjects that you voluntarily came here and expressed an interest in discussing.

DarqueKnight

RuSsMaN wrote: »

Come on, don't loose steam now! Suck it up, you started it, we're sitting by waiting for more enlightenment, more information! You can't walk away now, really.

Makes you feel kinda jilted doesn't it? Why do I keep letting them lead me on this way?:frown:

Charlie Freak

What more is there to say? I had my go at it, and you had yours.

ABX has its limits, and the way I see it, you're railing against the people who seem to think that just the mention of ABX or DBT automatically proves that their testing is legitimate and bullet proof.

The article I linked to, that you're all excited about, was just meant to bring up some food for thought.

Anyway, my position is that - no it doesn't guarantee that a test will be good, but the absence of it pretty much guarantees that the test is worthless.

I've read everything you have to say about why we cannot test music reproduction in this way, but I'm not buying it.

PolkClyde

Hey y'all,

Maybe one day,they can implant, a computer chip in our heads to make music sound better,what you think? no more burn in,break in,ABX OR DBT. Let's do it. Now back to listening> FeeltwoodMAC Rumors Album.

tonyb

Charlie Freak wrote: »

ABX has its limits, and the way I see it, you're railing against the people who seem to think that just the mention of ABX or DBT automatically proves that their testing is legitimate and bullet proof.

Anyway, my position is that - no it doesn't guarantee that a test will be good, but the absence of it pretty much guarantees that the test is worthless.

.

I don't believe anyone here suggests that anything is so called "bullet proof".
How can it be when so much of it is subjective. No need to make audio as complicated as some do. If it sounds good to you,fly with it, if not,swap it out for another piece. Is that so hard ? The science of it all, and in some cases, the lack of it, in the long run means diddly squat. Most just want to know if a certain product or tweek will improve their SQ, regardless if it's a cable, a soda can, or magic rocks. Does snake oil exist ? Of coarse it does, it exists everywhere in most products. No big news there. I see all this B.S. as a way for some to add some sort of validity to a subjective position, which is practically impossible since it's...well, subjective. You can buy into it,or not, the choice is yours. In the end, who cares, spend your own coin as you see fit and enjoy your tunes in the same manner.
Whether a product works or performs as claimed is up to the end user to decide. Who am I,or you, to tell someone what they hear is wrong ?

virtualdean

Charlie Freak wrote: »

I've read everything you have to say about why we cannot test music reproduction in this way, but I'm not buying it.

DBX is a scientifically proven and used method in every discipline.

However, using it to test audio laymen is a waste of time and effort. Who cares what they think?

Using only volunteer goldenears and "experts" would be the way to go...

and the goldenears would also chose all the criteria, checkpoints, definitions,

recordings, procedures. etc. Non believers would not be allowed.

Also, integrity would be paramount or it would be a waste of time.

The only thing blind would be which item was on line. No other visual clues allowed.

Non participants would do the swapping if it was a thing that could be swapped.

This is a simple test...Making it the design of goldenears removes "sabotage"

Being statistically valid would be good enough.

What would be tested would be up to the goldenears.
cable elevators, power cords, speaker cables, interconnects, teflon vs whatever, weights on amps, broken in drivers vs non broken in drivers. cdp's against cdp's..yada yada..


Some will be easy and a slam dunk, others very difficult, others not doable.
I hope they would restrict it to the difficult and above...

(when I say goldenears I'm not being disrespectful. Lots of people like that label, believers sounds like religion)

I'm sure there are believers who will never agree just as there are non believers who would want to tie it up into uselessness.

I just want to know.

Opinions are like aholes...everybody's got one..and it keeps conversations going while drinking beer.
It also keeps CP threads going long after they're played out. :rolleyes:

Proof on the other hand is truly golden.

For those of you who are inclined to argue and REALLY dont agree...
Instead of tearing holes in this one,(it is rough) come up with improvements or move on.

I don't have the energy that Charlie and DK have...God Bless 'em..
Im out.