Warm up time or is it my ears?

tonyb

We should all hold such a narrow view of audio, save ourselves a boat load of money.

....but then, that's exactly why some hold those narrow views isn't it ?

fmw

11tsteve wrote: »

fmw wrote: »

Yes. If an amplifier has an inaudible variance from a flat frequency response, there isn't any way for it to affect imaging. If it has audible variances then it could make content at those frequencies to vary subtly from amp to amp. However, if such an audible difference did occur, I would suggest that one of the amps is not well designed or defective. Almost all solid state amps these days have an audibly flat frequency response. I assume your amps have an audibly flat frequency response. Did you compare it one that did not?

So, you do concede amplifier design can affect soundstaging?

No, I said it could affect imaging. Perhaps we need to agree on terminology.

nooshinjohn

I just love the ignore feature... Just as effective as a can of Troll-b-Gone.

fmw

ZLTFUL wrote: »

fmw wrote: »

Yes. If an amplifier has an inaudible variance from a flat frequency response, there isn't any way for it to affect imaging. If it has audible variances then it could make content at those frequencies to vary subtly from amp to amp. However, if such an audible difference did occur, I would suggest that one of the amps is not well designed or defective. Almost all solid state amps these days have an audibly flat frequency response. I assume your amps have an audibly flat frequency response. Did you compare it one that did not?

Thank you for proving how utterly naive you really are.

You're going to say that a pure class A amp has the exact same sound as a class a biased A/B or class D amp? Oh boy, thanks for proving exactly how off the rails your thinking really is.

My position is that amplifiers with inaudible variance from a flat frequency response, inaudible distortion and inaudible noise won't contribute anything to the sound of a system. That is a good thing. Fortunately, most modern hifi solid state amplifiers meet those parameters.

We did have a class A amplifier in our amplifier tests and it proved not to have a sound of its own. Again, that is what we should want. Amplifiers are not good equalizers. They are not adjustable nor defeatable. So that is a positive statement. Since you have never compared a class A amp to a class A/B amp in a bias controlled test, then it is easy to see why you haven't gone off the rails like have.

heiney9

fmw wrote: »

Stereo imaging is determined at the mixing console. Nobody is suggesting that you can't hear the imaging. My comment was that changing amplifiers won't change the imaging. Changing speakers or speaker placement, however, can do so.

Wrong again. All components have different parts and pieces designed in different ways. Those parts, pieces, designs all interact differently amongst each other and also when a load (speaker) is present or when a signal is sent to be amplified. Ergo ---> all gear will sound different. To think otherwise is ludicrous, short sighted and extremely naïve. Not too mention unintelligent, counterintuitive, mindless, ignorant and comical.

H9

heiney9

leftwinger57 wrote: »

Guys I've said this many times and it does hold true for me. The instant I turn on my Adcom 555 and what ever source I hear absolutely no difference from start up or for hours running. Now for the tubers I get it they do need the time and here's a little story. I bought some speakers years ago from a dude in his Florida room. I said this is nice stuff,so what do you use for your personal use. He says I usually don't show my house but since your not a kid I'll give you a look. At 1st I almost bumped in these huge Albert Van Alstines I think the TOTL models. Then on the floor were 2 giant mono blocks (brand not known) and I asked if I could hear these things. He said no they need a GOOD HOUR TO GET TO PRIME LISTENING FULFILMENT. An hour kishmeirinkuchas, I need instant gratification which my Adcom gives me.....

And that's alright. Perhaps your ears aren't able to discern differences or you aren't sure what to listen for. That's all good, but the difference between you and the troll is you aren't saying differences don't/can't occur, you're saying you aren't able to hear them.

H9

tonyb

FMW,

While your certainly entitled to your opinion on the subject, you won't find many here in agreement. Might be best to move off the subject matter as nothing positive is going to come about from this back and forth.

heiney9

Anyway, I can see you can't reason with ignorance, so good day

Cheers

H9

fmw

heiney9 wrote: »

fmw wrote: »

Stereo imaging is determined at the mixing console. Nobody is suggesting that you can't hear the imaging. My comment was that changing amplifiers won't change the imaging. Changing speakers or speaker placement, however, can do so.

Wrong again. All components have different parts and pieces designed in different ways. Those parts, pieces, designs all interact differently amongst each other and also when a load (speaker) is present or when a signal is sent to be amplified. Ergo ---> all gear will sound different. To think otherwise is ludicrous, short sighted and extremely naïve. Not too mention unintelligent, counterintuitive, mindless, ignorant and comical.

H9

Well all gear does not sound different and that is test results not opinion based on hearing bias. That is not to say all things audio sound the same. But generally it is accurate to say that one should spend the money on speakers and room acoustics where the sound quality is and worry less about the electronics which are pretty transparent these days. But I sure appreciate the insults. They ring hollow to someone like me reading a rant from someone without the same experience.

fmw

ZLTFUL wrote: »

"Bias controlled" because we can't all actually be rational and logical.

The only way to completely eliminate bias altogether is to eliminate the human factor. So again, you are naive to think that you can remove bias from the equation.

I disagree. To handle hearing bias only three things are necessary.

1. products must be accurately level matched
2. the listener cannot know which product is which
3. there must not be any clues during the test which play to non hearing biases

You, yourself show bias in simply thinking that bias can be removed from the equation. You show bias in trying to debunk anything that does not agree with your *opinion*.
All you do is show how truly clueless you really are.

Same to you. However my opinions are test results.

Every single human being hears differently and processes sounds differently than the next one. Maybe, to someone, a certain song was being played while they were being injured or harmed in some way. Their experiences dictate how they react to that particular song.
A person's mood will dictate how they perceive a song.

I know that intimately from our tests.

You can try and minimize bias but controlling bias is about as impossible as controlling the tides or controlling what time the sun will rise and set. To think that you are above it is naive at best and ignorant at worst.

You must be thinking of blind preference tests. Our tests were only for audible differences so time of day, mood, tides and so forth were the same for both products being compared. The naivete is on your part since you don't the experience I have.

Put a class D amplifier up against a pure class A amplifier, blind, sighted, naked or otherwise and I will easily point out the difference 100 times out of 100.
Fly out here. Put your money where your mouth is. I have 5 amplifiers in house right now and can easily distinguish between each and every one of them. And guess what? They all meet your criteria of being flat frequency response, inaudible distortion and inaudible noise but all have distinctly different sound signatures which I can easily distinguish between using the same preamp, same source material and the same speakers.

If they meet the criteria then they will prove to be free of audible differences in a bias controlled test 100% of the time. I understand clearly that you can distinguish one amp from another in a sighted comparison even while naked. So can I.

fmw

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I just love the ignore feature... Just as effective as a can of Troll-b-Gone.

That is an effective way to hide from the truth. Hope you feel better now.

tonyb

fmw wrote: »

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I just love the ignore feature... Just as effective as a can of Troll-b-Gone.

That is an effective way to hide from the truth. Hope you feel better now.

We feel better knowing that your "truth" is the only one. LMAO !!

fmw

tonyb wrote: »

fmw wrote: »

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I just love the ignore feature... Just as effective as a can of Troll-b-Gone.

That is an effective way to hide from the truth. Hope you feel better now.

We feel better knowing that your "truth" is the only one. LMAO !!

Glad I could make you feel better.

F1nut

Don't forget guys, it only takes 10 seconds to make these determinations.

tonyb

F1nut wrote: »

Don't forget guys, it only takes 10 seconds to make these determinations.

......and that's about how much time I'm going to invest in his thoughts.....even then, it's too long.

polrbehr

fmw wrote: »

ZLTFUL wrote: »

fmw wrote: »

Yes. If an amplifier has an inaudible variance from a flat frequency response, there isn't any way for it to affect imaging. If it has audible variances then it could make content at those frequencies to vary subtly from amp to amp. However, if such an audible difference did occur, I would suggest that one of the amps is not well designed or defective. Almost all solid state amps these days have an audibly flat frequency response. I assume your amps have an audibly flat frequency response. Did you compare it one that did not?

Thank you for proving how utterly naive you really are.

You're going to say that a pure class A amp has the exact same sound as a class a biased A/B or class D amp? Oh boy, thanks for proving exactly how off the rails your thinking really is.

My position is that amplifiers with inaudible variance from a flat frequency response, inaudible distortion and inaudible noise won't contribute anything to the sound of a system. That is a good thing. Fortunately, most modern hifi solid state amplifiers meet those parameters.

We did have a class A amplifier in our amplifier tests and it proved not to have a sound of its own. Again, that is what we should want. Amplifiers are not good equalizers. They are not adjustable nor defeatable. So that is a positive statement. Since you have never compared a class A amp to a class A/B amp in a bias controlled test, then it is easy to see why you haven't gone off the rails like have.

You seem pretty firm in your beliefs about this subject, and that's OK, but honestly
I was just wondering, can you provide us with the exact parameters used for these tests you conducted? We already got that the test time was only 10 seconds, so with that in mind ---

Which amps (you did say you had a Class A, right?), speakers, source(s), cables, room size, room treatments, etc?
If those simple things can be easily answered, then perhaps you can also explain why you conducted them as well. I really am interested in how these results were obtained, heck I might have to give them a try myself, I've been looking to try Class A or a good tube amp anyway!

cnh

Let's see: all amps sound the same, all cables render the same sound, a certain bit rate of MP3 cannot be distinguished from lossless CD sound, Double Blind testing in units of 10 seconds is the gold standard (but would fail to produce an **** in most cases, lol), An amateur and a seasoned audiophile can hear the SAME differences in a recording because there is NO learning curve in perceiving and interpreting stereophonic sound? _____________________________________________and a blank for anything I have missed.

I realize the above are pearls of wisdom that most people who know nothing about sound would not know. But wait, those judgments are exactly what the average person would think even if they have no testing data to refer to. Isn't all that "common sense" and isn't common sense the Highest form of Knowledge?

And to think we had to be educated about such things? What is it that we're learning that we don't already know? Anamnesis, anyone? What would Plato say?

fmw

polrbehr wrote: »

fmw wrote: »

ZLTFUL wrote: »

fmw wrote: »

Yes. If an amplifier has an inaudible variance from a flat frequency response, there isn't any way for it to affect imaging. If it has audible variances then it could make content at those frequencies to vary subtly from amp to amp. However, if such an audible difference did occur, I would suggest that one of the amps is not well designed or defective. Almost all solid state amps these days have an audibly flat frequency response. I assume your amps have an audibly flat frequency response. Did you compare it one that did not?

Thank you for proving how utterly naive you really are.

You're going to say that a pure class A amp has the exact same sound as a class a biased A/B or class D amp? Oh boy, thanks for proving exactly how off the rails your thinking really is.

My position is that amplifiers with inaudible variance from a flat frequency response, inaudible distortion and inaudible noise won't contribute anything to the sound of a system. That is a good thing. Fortunately, most modern hifi solid state amplifiers meet those parameters.

We did have a class A amplifier in our amplifier tests and it proved not to have a sound of its own. Again, that is what we should want. Amplifiers are not good equalizers. They are not adjustable nor defeatable. So that is a positive statement. Since you have never compared a class A amp to a class A/B amp in a bias controlled test, then it is easy to see why you haven't gone off the rails like have.

You seem pretty firm in your beliefs about this subject, and that's OK, but honestly
I was just wondering, can you provide us with the exact parameters used for these tests you conducted? We already got that the test time was only 10 seconds, so with that in mind ---

Which amps (you did say you had a Class A, right?), speakers, source(s), cables, room size, room treatments, etc?
If those simple things can be easily answered, then perhaps you can also explain why you conducted them as well. I really am interested in how these results were obtained, heck I might have to give them a try myself, I've been looking to try Class A or a good tube amp anyway!

It is a fairly long story but I will simplify. I was on a forum years ago and read a discussion about the audibility of digital cables. I couldn't think of a law of physics that could explain how a cable transmitting digitally encoded audio could have a sound since it doesn't become sound again until after conversion. So I visited my friend the audio dealer and borrowed some digital cables. I did some bias controlled comparisons with my wife assisting and confirmed that there was no reason for anyone to believe that a digital interconnect cable could have a sonic signature.

One thing led to another. 10 men from our local audiophile group decided to do all kinds of bias controlled tests and so we did so over the next 2 years.

We used two venues for the tests. One was the dealer's showroom and the other was in my home. The speakers were B&W Matrix 801 at the dealer and B&W Matrix 802 at my home. At the dealer's location we used several amps and preamps and CD players. At my home those products were all made by Audio Research - the dealer's top product line.

We did the standard double blind testing sometimes using a switchbox, sometimes the dealer's speaker switching system and sometimes manual cable changes. We level matched to .01 volt at the speaker terminal. The process was to play the test products for each listener sighted and identify them as A and B. Then during the tests we would play music snippets (CD's provided by the listeners themselves) and play them about 20 times switching between A and B randomly and scoring the blind ID. Then the responses were scored with results ranging from 50% correct (same as guessing) and 100% (clearly audible.)

The class A amp that I can recall was a Krell - a big heavy stereo amp and a very good one despite not being very efficient. We tested a few tube amps ranging from Audio Research to Dynaco. We tested several amps, CD players, DAC's etc. over the period of time.

The easiest bias controlled test is comparing cables. No level matching is required and all you need is someone to make cable changes where you can't see what is going on. We tested 15 internconnect cables and found one that had a sonic signature. It was Japanese made and had the conductors wound into a tight coil. Since then I have tested a couple MIT cables which have little black boxes attached to them. They both acted like filters with some cut in the low treble. Give it a shot.

11tsteve

fmw wrote: »

11tsteve wrote: »

fmw wrote: »

Yes. If an amplifier has an inaudible variance from a flat frequency response, there isn't any way for it to affect imaging. If it has audible variances then it could make content at those frequencies to vary subtly from amp to amp. However, if such an audible difference did occur, I would suggest that one of the amps is not well designed or defective. Almost all solid state amps these days have an audibly flat frequency response. I assume your amps have an audibly flat frequency response. Did you compare it one that did not?

So, you do concede amplifier design can affect soundstaging?

No, I said it could affect imaging. Perhaps we need to agree on terminology.

Sorry but I find the two to be intertwined. If a lesser design blurs the imaging it also tends to flatten the soundstage. The better amp the sharpens the imaging... the result being a deeper and wider field. That's all I was getting at.

fmw

cnh wrote: »

Let's see: all amps sound the same, all cables render the same sound, a certain bit rate of MP3 cannot be distinguished from lossless CD sound, Double Blind testing in units of 10 seconds is the gold standard (but would fail to produce an **** in most cases, lol), An amateur and a seasoned audiophile can hear the SAME differences in a recording because there is NO learning curve in perceiving and interpreting stereophonic sound? _____________________________________________and a blank for anything I have missed.

I realize the above are pearls of wisdom that most people who know nothing about sound would not know. But wait, those judgments are exactly what the average person would think even if they have no testing data to refer to. Isn't all that "common sense" and isn't common sense the Highest form of Knowledge?

And to think we had to be educated about such things? What is it that we're learning that we don't already know? Anamnesis, anyone? What would Plato say?

fmw

11tsteve wrote: »

fmw wrote: »

11tsteve wrote: »

fmw wrote: »

Yes. If an amplifier has an inaudible variance from a flat frequency response, there isn't any way for it to affect imaging. If it has audible variances then it could make content at those frequencies to vary subtly from amp to amp. However, if such an audible difference did occur, I would suggest that one of the amps is not well designed or defective. Almost all solid state amps these days have an audibly flat frequency response. I assume your amps have an audibly flat frequency response. Did you compare it one that did not?

So, you do concede amplifier design can affect soundstaging?

No, I said it could affect imaging. Perhaps we need to agree on terminology.

Sorry but I find the two to be intertwined. If a lesser design blurs the imaging it also tends to flatten the soundstage. The better amp the sharpens the imaging... the result being a deeper and wider field. That's all I was getting at.

OK, I understand but disagree.

afterburnt

What was in that sausage thread anyway?

motorhead43026

Sausage, and lots of it.

afterburnt

I should have read it

polrbehr

So if I understand what you wrote, you basically did these tests to determine if there was any sonic differences in cables, specifically digital cables. Yes? And in doing these tests, you used several pieces of gear over a fairly lengthy period of time.

But one more ? for you, do you have the test results? Other than the "no difference was heard", you kept score and all, so there must be some stats you collected.

At any rate, thanks for replying; I honestly was not expecting one.

fmw

polrbehr wrote: »

So if I understand what you wrote, you basically did these tests to determine if there was any sonic differences in cables, specifically digital cables. Yes? And in doing these tests, you used several pieces of gear over a fairly lengthy period of time.

No we did the tests in one day on the same equipment.

But one more ? for you, do you have the test results? Other than the "no difference was heard", you kept score and all, so there must be some stats you collected.

No we didn't keep the scores. Our purpose wasn't to do tests for anyone other than ourselves.

At any rate, thanks for replying; I honestly was not expecting one.

Any time. I have no problem answering question. But I have stopped responding to the insults I get from others.

fmw

ZLTFUL wrote: »

But it isn't insulting of you to discount quite literally everyone elses testing and experiences?

I don't think so. You, me and everyone else experiences hearing bias. All I am doing is explaining that some audible differences are in the bias and not the equipment. It is the truth.

You say I haven't done any testing of my own and if I had, I would think like you...which seems rather conceited and decidedly arrogant really.

No, I said you haven't done any bias controlled comparisons.

Because it assumes things of me of which you know nothing about. You don't know me. You don't know what equipment I own. You don't know the methods by which I evaluated and chose the gear I do own. You don't know how I compared equipment that was swapped out of my systems. You make a grand amount of assumptions based on little more than I have hurt your precious little ego and brittle little feelings by questioning your very weak postulations.
You keep throwing around the term "bias controlled". Which means that my testing isn't valid unless I close my eyes and have someone else controlling the test to you.

I know how you evaluate audio equipment by what you write. Your testing is not valid for determining whether an audible difference is biased or actual. Some are biased, some are not. Your method can't possibly sort that out. You don't want to sort it out so it isn't an issue for you. But it is for me. If the bias works for you, then that's great. It doesn't work for me.

It isn't that anyone is being insulting (ok...I am really) but that you have taken this posture that your views and methods are right and scientifically infallible. But someone else with two PhDs directly related to the fields being discussed has pointed out the flaws in your methodology and you continue to discount them as wrong.

If the person with two PhD's has engaged in bias controlled comparisons I'd be very interested in his opinions. If he hasn't then all I can say is what I said above. All humans experience hearing bias. Academic degrees don't change that.

Sorry, but I am going to go with the research of someone who consistently posts his results here and outlines his testing methodology completely over some internet crusader who is out to save us from ourselves because our views don't mesh with yours.

By all means. Actually I'm not trying to convert you to anything. I write for newcomers to the hobby that I think would benefit from the information.

You will continue to be ignored or ridiculed until you post actual results and testing methodology. And having x ask you to come back so he has at least one ally is pathetic really.

I'll be ready for it.

ZLTFUL wrote: »

But it isn't insulting of you to discount quite literally everyone elses testing and experiences?

You say I haven't done any testing of my own and if I had, I would think like you...which seems rather conceited and decidedly arrogant really.
Because it assumes things of me of which you know nothing about. You don't know me. You don't know what equipment I own. You don't know the methods by which I evaluated and chose the gear I do own. You don't know how I compared equipment that was swapped out of my systems. You make a grand amount of assumptions based on little more than I have hurt your precious little ego and brittle little feelings by questioning your very weak postulations.
You keep throwing around the term "bias controlled". Which means that my testing isn't valid unless I close my eyes and have someone else controlling the test to you.

It isn't that anyone is being insulting (ok...I am really) but that you have taken this posture that your views and methods are right and scientifically infallible. But someone else with two PhDs directly related to the fields being discussed has pointed out the flaws in your methodology and you continue to discount them as wrong.

Sorry, but I am going to go with the research of someone who consistently posts his results here and outlines his testing methodology completely over some internet crusader who is out to save us from ourselves because our views don't mesh with yours.

You will continue to be ignored or ridiculed until you post actual results and testing methodology. And having x ask you to come back so he has at least one ally is pathetic really.

BlueFox

fmw wrote: »

ZLTFUL wrote: »

But it isn't insulting of you to discount quite literally everyone elses testing and experiences?

By all means. Actually I'm not trying to convert you to anything. I write for newcomers to the hobby that I think would benefit from the information.

What information? So far you has posted squat. Saying you did tests in the past means nothing. Provide the links to this research so the newcomers can evaluate the tests, and determine if they are valid, or just junk tests by wannabe psuedo-engineers.

polrbehr

fmw wrote: »

It is a fairly long story but I will simplify. I was on a forum years ago and read a discussion about the audibility of digital cables. I couldn't think of a law of physics that could explain how a cable transmitting digitally encoded audio could have a sound since it doesn't become sound again until after conversion. So I visited my friend the audio dealer and borrowed some digital cables. I did some bias controlled comparisons with my wife assisting and confirmed that there was no reason for anyone to believe that a digital interconnect cable could have a sonic signature.

One thing led to another. 10 men from our local audiophile group decided to do all kinds of bias controlled tests and so we did so over the next 2 years.

We used two venues for the tests. One was the dealer's showroom and the other was in my home. The speakers were B&W Matrix 801 at the dealer and B&W Matrix 802 at my home. At the dealer's location we used several amps and preamps and CD players. At my home those products were all made by Audio Research - the dealer's top product line.

fmw wrote: »

polrbehr wrote: »

So if I understand what you wrote, you basically did these tests to determine if there was any sonic differences in cables, specifically digital cables. Yes? And in doing these tests, you used several pieces of gear over a fairly lengthy period of time.

No we did the tests in one day on the same equipment.

Now I'm really confused; first, the tests were conducted over two years, using all kinds of biased controlled tests. You also state you used your equipment, as well as a dealer's, using several amps, preamps, CD players, etc.

Then you reply that the tests were done in one day on the same equipment.

I am not being a martinet here, I really don't know if we are referring to the same things, just hoping you'd clarify.

fmw

BlueFox wrote: »

fmw wrote: »

ZLTFUL wrote: »

But it isn't insulting of you to discount quite literally everyone elses testing and experiences?

By all means. Actually I'm not trying to convert you to anything. I write for newcomers to the hobby that I think would benefit from the information.

What information? So far you has posted squat. Saying you did tests in the past means nothing. Provide the links to this research so the newcomers can evaluate the tests, and determine if they are valid, or just junk tests by wannabe psuedo-engineers.

Feel free to consider what I say as junk by wannabe pseudo-engineers. I don't care a whit.