Warm up time or is it my ears?

fmw wrote: »

DarqueKnight wrote:

You seem to believe that blind/double blind testing is the only form of bias controlled testing. There are many types of bias controlled tests specified for different types of sensory stimuli and different types of test subjects. The peer-reviewed sensory science literature has much credible information for those with an honest interest in the subject.

I don't know why you think that because I didn't say that.

Am I mistaken? Please point out where you have referenced other types of audio testing that didn't involve blinding.

fmw wrote: »

All I have said is that some audible differences in audio equipment disappear in blind tests.

All I have consistently said is that some audible differences in audio equipment disappear in POORLY AND DISHONESTLY constructed blind tests.

I could "prove" that any doctor is medically incompetent if I gave them a multiple choice basic human anatomy test with 200 questions and only 1 hour to finish.

fmw wrote: »

OK, but we didn't test any complex sensory stimuli. We did our best to eliminate all of them except for hearing and only tested for the existence of audible differences.

Stereophonic music is a complex sensory experience. You can't properly test how well something is presented by removing parts of the presentation. That is as crazy as saying you are going to evaluate two color televisions by watching black and white material and then saying there is no difference in their color presentation. That is as crazy as saying you are going to evaluate two cakes by removing all the ingredients except flour and sugar and then saying there is no difference in their tastes.

fmw wrote: »

DarqueKnight wrote:

You need to do a more in-depth study of what kind of bias control testing is appropriate for a specific audio scenario, then come back and speak from knowledge, rather than limited experience and shallow understanding.

You think I should study something that has not been studied and written about. I would suggest to you that you do some tests like we did and come back. Then we will talk. My limited experience about audible difference testing is a quantum leap ahead of those on this forum.

Descriptive methods of evaluating stereophonic audio systems have been studied and written about in scientific journals since the time that such systems were invented. One of the articles I cited earlier has many such references:

[1] Beaubein, W. H. and Moore, H. B., "Perception of Stereophonic Effect as a Function of Frequency", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 8, No. 2, April 1960, pp. 76-86.
[2] Fletcher, Harvey, "Symposium on Wire Transmission of Symphonic Music and Its Reproduction in Auditory Perspective-Basic Requirements", Bell System Technical Journal, Vol. 13, 1934, pp. 239-244.
[3] Moor, J. and Leslie, J. A., "The Stereophonic Reproduction of Speech and Music", Journal of the British Institution of Radio Engineers, London, September 1951, pp. 360-366.
[4] Fletcher, Harvey, "Hearing, The Determining Factor for High-Fidelity Transmission", Proceedings of the I.R.E., Columbus, OH, June 1942, pp. 266-277.
[5] Steinberg, J. C., and Snow, W. B., "Symposium on Wire Transmission of Symphonic Music and Its Reproduction in Auditory Perspective-Physical Factors", Bell System Technical Journal, Vol. 13, 1934, pp. 245-258.

Above references from:

http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/104701/a-survey-of-early-stereophonic-system-subjective-evaluation

fmw wrote: »

That is a completely different test. In those tests you were comparing audible differences and judging which was the more intelligible. You listened and voted for the preferred sound. It is something like a preference test like those done by Dr. Olive at Harman. If you had encountered a comparison with the same sound on both sides your results would been similar to guesswork.

It is that audible difference we tested. Which of the two units did you just hear, A or
B? Guess works proves there is no audible difference. Majority right or wrong answers prove that there is an audible difference. It is not a preference test.

I was not speaking of preference testing. If you had any scientific understanding of human audio perception you would not have made this mistake.

fmw wrote: »

Above you talked about sensory stimuli so you certainly understand that, when the ears and brain can't make a determination about a difference, it takes shortcuts and factors in other stimuli - sight, expectation, preference, mood etc.

The brain does not take short cuts in perception when it is properly trained to evaluate something. Naïve shoppers are swayed by price, brand name, slick marketing, and flashy appearance. Educated shoppers are trained in evaluating a product based on its performance, value and reliability.

fmw wrote: »

It is strange to me that a scientific person like you can't understand that removing these stimuli gets down to an unvarnished truth about audible differences. I can't explain it to myself except to assume denial on your part.

What is really bizarre is that you think the only credible method for evaluating a complex sensory event is to reduce the level of complexity, rather than train the brain and senses to properly evaluate the event. Such a test, where the thing evaluated is not a true representation of itself, CAN ONLY provide false data.

You are the one in deep denial that equipment designed to present a three dimensional sound field can accurately be evaluated with 10 second snippets of sound. It is as ludicrous as saying food with complex flavors can be evaluated with fingernail sized samples.

fmw wrote: »

In order to make a change in the stream something has to change in the pulse or the voltage to alter the digital value of the signal. Common sense tells you that cables don't do that. My tests tell me beyond any shadow of a doubt that cables don't do that. Any audible differences with digital cables are hearing bias, not the cables. Every audible difference in digital cables will disappear in a blind test. Every time. Try it. It is a very easy test because it doesn't require any level matching. Seriously, if you truly believe that a cable can alter the digital value of the signal, you should have no fear of such a test.

Noise content can also have audible effect on a digital pulse stream. Noise represents error, and the effects of that error can pass through the digital to analog conversion process and show up as a audible detriment in the sound coming from the loudspeakers.

Over the years, I have done many analyses of cables where I measured the input and output waveforms and measured whether the differences were within the range of human audibility. Have you done similar studies? Here are some of mine:

http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/162693/revelation-audio-labs-passage-cryosilver-reference-db25-power-cable

http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/163098/revisiting-magnetic-shielding-for-the-pass-labs-xp-25-phono-preamp

http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/165959/digital-interconnect-cables-whats-your-experience/p2

Since you are not interested in stereophonic performance parameters such as imaging, sound stage, image weight, and tactile sensation, you are blissfully ignorant of how the synergy between cables and components can affect stereophonic performance.

It's a shame that you want to force people to have the bland, joyless, shades of gray, audio experience you endure.

Thanks for playing.

fmw wrote: »

afterburnt wrote: »

Is there a way to unsubscribe from your own thread?

Not necessary. You folks can dish it out but you can't take it. I'm bored of interfacing with adolescents. I'll ban myself from this monkey farm.

wait!! not before I can Ignore you.

As Kramer would say....I'M OUT !!!

nbrowser wrote: »

DarqueKnight wrote: »

It's a shame that you want to force people to have the bland, joyless, shades of gray, audio experience you endure.

You know, I was one of "those" who "enjoyed bland joyless shades of gray" then found this place. Lots of helpful friendly people here guided me to one hell of a kick rear end hybrid rig that's fronted by the best sounding monoliths I've ever heard. Yep synergy is there as well as enough in power reserves for powerful transients. I'm sure anyone could get along with a $100 receiver and cheap bookies but not me and several others as evidenced by the group we have here.

Now to get serious about refreshing my SDAs crossovers soon and let em shine.

P.S., the system sounds much better after it's had at least an hour to warm up and get the electrons flowing nicely.

Yeah, you were one of "those people". lol

Yet you kept an open mind, tried some stuff, and your musical enjoyment has expanded. Isn't that what it's all about ? No bias testing needed in 10 second snippets , no friends needed to tell you what you should or shouldn't hear.

Now that your at a place of higher music enjoyment, betcha your friends who all hold a Roger Russell report in their back pockets are scratching their heads huh ?

Lord Vader wrote: »

I sense something. A presence I have not felt since............................................

Viagra finally working for you?

"Warm up time" to an Italian is called a microwave....for those left over meatball subs and Lasagna. Even cold meatball subs are pretty awesome.

I have SS gear and tubed CDP.

If I start listening to it immediately after turn on the music sounds good but a little sterile. After an hour or two things start sounding good.

If I leave the system on/idle overnight that when it sounds its best.

My setup sounds much better after being on 48 hours compared to just being turned on.
Mine too.