My Latest Conundrum: Please Read

[moonboy403]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullseye /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, don't know where you got that I am still in school... I am studying civil engineering, I am on my second year of the 6 years it takes to finish.

If you're on your second year of studies, then you're still in school.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullseye /img/forum/go_quote.gif I didn't question his studies, just questioned his way of speaking. To me he sounded more like a salesperson rather than an engineer.

"You sure you have a sophomore certificate? Or you won it in the lottery?"

That quote clearly suggests that you're questioning his background and also in a very rude way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullseye /img/forum/go_quote.gif If I could measure some headphones using a diffuse field microphone on a dummy head or with my own ears (putting the microphone inside my ear canals) I would do so in order to decide from different headphones that have a similar price range. I would make my conclusions over the measurements and my perception related to those measurements. In a way, yeah, I would like to study and measure headphone's frequency response together with my reaction to a different sound signature. That way I would learn more about my tastes. However I do not have the means nor the money to do those tests.

You initially bashed Don's comment of how we should listen for ourselves and decide if we like something or not. Instead, our approach should be measurement based and our ears' preference come only second at best since we can't trust our ears. Now you're contradicting yourself as your preference in headphones is primarily based on listening through your ears.

 

[olblueyez]

Guy just likes to argue even if it means talking in circles.

 

[moonboy403]

I also apologize for derailing the thread but everyone can carry on now as I'm going to leave this thread behind me and just keep on lurking.

 

[Bullseye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by moonboy403 /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you're on your second year of studies, then you're still in school.

I think it is called University, not school. However call it how you like.
Quote:

"You sure you have a sophomore certificate? Or you won it in the lottery?" That quote clearly suggests that you're questioning his background and also in a very rude way.

You forgot the smiley:

You didn't pick up I was just kidding. You took my answer as an attack even if it wasn't directed to you. Nice one!

Quote:

You initially bashed Don's comment of how we should listen for ourselves and decide if we like something or not. Instead, our approach should be measurement based and our ears' preference come only second at best since we can't trust our ears. Now you're contradicting yourself as your preference in headphones is primarily based on listening through your ears.

Wow, you really got this personal

I didn't tell you what you liked listening to or not. You just put your words in my mouth.
My preference on headphones is decided by price range and by sound characteristic. If I can know how the characteristic (frequency response) is related to sound then it is better.

Olblueyez

Talking about arguing...

and talking in circles

(You keep impressing me)

 

[Donald North]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would like to suggest that you were "imprinted" in your sophomore year of college and have not been able to over come it despite your education.

I was not "imprinted". I was 19 with keen hearing, an open mind, and open ears. My classmates heard it too and were similarly puzzled.

Why this is, I don't fully know yet. Some possible reasons: Perhaps the ear is less offended by wow & flutter than jitter; perhaps 16-bit format is not enough resolution; perhaps 48kHz sampling with a brick wall filter is not benign to the ear; perhaps there were differences in fidelity of the analog sections.

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif This next statement, the one in dark red, is just pure hokum and not very original. The snake oilers have been using that line around here for years. They use it for speaker cables, interconnects, optical cables, USB cables and all the other non-repeatable, non-reproducible, unmeasurable hokus-pokus they come up with. This is science not blind faith.

Science is trying to understand our universe; making observations, creating hypothesis and theories to possibly explain these observations, conduct tests to confirm/deny the theory, all in the pursuit to understand the root cause and mode of operation. The human auditory and cognitive process is beautifully complex, blending many fields of science. I don't believe we have all the answers yet, but hopefully will someday. I have a friend who has been reading countless publications these past 2 years from audio, recording, psychoacoustics, human physiology, and is preparing his "grand unification theorem of audio".

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif On the other hand, maybe I don't understand what you mean by "higher resolution". What exactly are you hearing?

Higher resolution means hearing more going on within a recording and greater variation between recordings. It's like using higher quality optics in a camera or telescope. Cleaning or changing a blurred window.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donald North /img/forum/go_quote.gif An amplifier with higher resolution is not going to measure better on the lab bench by any traditional means that I know. You have to hear and experience for yourself. This is what led me back to analog and into tubes, particularly single ended triodes. To each his own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif On the other hand, maybe I don't understand what you mean by "higher resolution". What exactly are you hearing? USG

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donald North /img/forum/go_quote.gif Higher resolution means hearing more going on within a recording and greater variation between recordings. It's like using higher quality optics in a camera or telescope. Cleaning or changing a blurred window.

I take issue with the use of metaphor an analogy here, this is exactly the sort of vague unverifiable analogical thinking that makes it difficult to objectively assess things. I am also a bit unhappy about the use of high resolution as a term applied to amplifiers.

I will explain my objections.

When we consider what an amplifier does we have to ask in what way can an amplifer degrade an audio signal, an amplifier cannot recover more than is in the original signal so if differences exist it is in the extent to which amplifiers bollocks things up (an english expression) differently. How can an amp bollocks things up, well it can add distortion or noise both of which will mask some parts of the signal so that low amplitude frequencies might drop below the noise floor , gross distortion will have a similar effect. What else, well really bad crosstalk (poor channel separation) will affect the stereo image, gross group delays *might* cause audible artifacts, terrible slew rate might make the amp incapable of responding to transients properly, overdriving can cause clipping and bizarre impedance mismatching might cause issues with some loudspeakers.

How likely is any of this ?

A competent modern integrated amp is pretty quiet (-90db to 100db) and has pretty low distortion (< 0.01%) , excellent channel separation (90db+), adequate slew rate and a group delay of less than 3ms is just not an issue (Blauert and Laws 1978). So how then can one amp have higher resolution than another ?

 

[olblueyez]

Substitute Sounds better for higher resolution.

 

[Donald North]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif I take issue with the use of metaphor an analogy here, this is exactly the sort of vague unverifiable analogical thinking that makes it difficult to objectively assess things. I am also a bit unhappy about the use of high resolution as a term applied to amplifiers.

I suspect the explanation is a complex combination of various attributes: some known - some yet to be discovered. Lavardin proposed a new form of distortion called "memory distortion":
Lavardin Technologies - distorsion de memoire

Lavardin Technologies - AES - the Audio Engineering Society

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif A competent modern integrated amp is pretty quiet (-90db to 100db) and has pretty low distortion (< 0.01%) , excellent channel separation (90db+), adequate slew rate and a group delay of less than 3ms is just not an issue (Blauert and Laws 1978). So how then can one amp have higher resolution than another ?

Don is better at concrete examples because he's an actual designer. I, on the other hand, like philosophy. I can explain your statement philosophically, but I don't know if that will satisfy you.

I believe that your description of the amp's behavior is not complete. Measurements like harmonic distortion, slew rate, etc. are like taking a tiny peek at the amp's behavior, which is more like a giant universe of responses to a giant universe of inputs. Only the ear/brain can judge the gestalt, the holistic behavior of the system. If it sounds wrong, it is wrong.

Now, I recognize that different people have different ways of organizing and perceiving musical sound. For some, this integrated amp you describe sounds accurate. Don't forget, you are still dealing with a subjective impression (assuming you listened with an open mind). It just so happens that for some people, the subjective perception lines up with the measurements.

Either that, or they just aren't listening and are biased to believe the sound will be accurate because the measurements (that tiny peek at the behavior) happen to line up.

EDIT: another idea is here: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/u...ortion-430573/. I'm not sure I believe it---just brainstorming and throwing another idea out.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif I take issue with the use of metaphor an analogy here, this is exactly the sort of vague unverifiable analogical thinking that makes it difficult to objectively assess things. I am also a bit unhappy about the use of high resolution as a term applied to amplifiers. I will explain my objections. When we consider what an amplifier does we have to ask in what way can an amplifer degrade an audio signal, an amplifier cannot recover more than is in the original signal so if differences exist it is in the extent to which amplifiers bollocks things up (an english expression) differently. How can an amp bollocks things up, well it can add distortion or noise both of which will mask some parts of the signal so that low amplitude frequencies might drop below the noise floor , gross distortion will have a similar effect. What else, well really bad crosstalk (poor channel separation) will affect the stereo image, gross group delays *might* cause audible artifacts, terrible slew rate might make the amp incapable of responding to transients properly, overdriving can cause clipping and bizarre impedance mismatching might cause issues with some loudspeakers. How likely is any of this ? A competent modern integrated amp is pretty quiet (-90db to 100db) and has pretty low distortion (< 0.01%) , excellent channel separation (90db+), adequate slew rate and a group delay of less than 3ms is just not an issue (Blauert and Laws 1978). So how then can one amp have higher resolution than another ?

Good question! But I don't make my sonic impressions dependent on measuring values. So it's not in my responsibility to look for explanations. To me resolution is one of the most important quality aspects with amplifiers and something e.g. my Corda Symphony excels at. I've experienced a few other amps with particularly high resolution (e.g. Dynamight, HeadCode DM), but those had some other sonic flaws I couldn't live with. Which would be similarly hard to measure, BTW, as I'm sure they all measure the same as usual modern solid-state amps (i.e. virtually perfect frequency response, «negligible» harmonic and IM distortion).
.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donald North /img/forum/go_quote.gif I suspect the explanation is a complex combination of various attributes: some known - some yet to be discovered. Lavardin proposed a new form of distortion called "memory distortion": Lavardin Technologies - distorsion de memoire Lavardin Technologies - AES - the Audio Engineering Society

I am familiar with the Perrot paper ( I am an AES member) there are a few methodological questions hanging over it such as sighted listening tests (unknown number of listeners, no real description of the listening conditions) confounding variables - three amplifier types (Conventional SS, Tube, new SS) - three different patterns of memory distortion - plus the poor graphs makes me unsure what to conclude from it. Having done the paper the guy patented the design and there were no follow up studies so while it is interesting it is hard to assess it properly.

 

[royalcrown]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donald North /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi-Fi Choice magazine finds audible differences in components during blind listenings. Do their results not count?

I still haven't gotten an answer to my question in full: are these blind tests designed to differentiate between something, or are these blind impressions? There's a huge difference between the two. I did read the quote you posted that you took from one of their issues, but this doesn't answer my question. Even if everything was properly blinded, did they just ask the panel "do you prefer A or B?" If so, the results are meaningless, because if there is in fact no audible difference they will arbitrarily pick something, and in any case you either need a very large sample to mitigate this, or a statistically significant number of trials. I could not find such information when I searched over the Internet, and until these questions are answered, we can't assume that their testing is legitimate. It would be much more preferable if they did a proper ABX test and asked the panel to identify which component is which, rather than just asking them what sounds better, although you'd still need to test properly for statistically significant results.

 

[Donald North]

Call or e-mail them and ask for more specifics.

 

[anoobis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullseye /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think it is called University, not school. However call it how you like.

That's simply an Americanism, not a reflection on your level of education.

 

[royalcrown]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donald North /img/forum/go_quote.gif Call or e-mail them and ask for more specifics.

Do you happen to have either on hand? I couldn't find either browsing the website - it's probably right in front of my face but I have an uncanny ability to miss obvious things. I probably won't be able to call them because it'll be an international call with international rates, but I'll definitely e-mail them - if their blind testing is legitimate, I'd be extremely interested in the findings.

EDIT: nvm, found it: HiFiOnline@futurenet.co.uk

Let this be another testament to my complete inability to find stuff.

EDIT 2: The e-mail I sent turned out to be undeliverable. Anyone have an alternate e-mail that I can reach them at?