[bigshot]

It takes me a while to come to a conclusion too, but that’s because I’m not sure until a convincing bit of evidence pops up. That doesn’t have anything to do with length of samples though.

 

[castleofargh]

Concerning difference , there are many research papers concerning perception over time

Look up , sensory acclimation

Hard going but very interesting

Good call, this is also part of why I'm concerned with long use of something.
If the objective is to know how typical people feel after a long use, then of course we should have people try gear for a long time. But for just about anything else, long time tends to add more variables to something that's already not simple.

It takes me a while to come to a conclusion too, but that’s because I’m not sure until a convincing bit of evidence pops up. That doesn’t have anything to do with length of samples though.

But how do we prove it? That's what @jagwap has been asking. If we only rely on short samples to validate or invalidate ideas, aren't we automatically discarding long experiences as being different(if they are) only because of errors? I think that's mostly true, but to prove it is another story.

 

[The Jester]

Probably the best recommendation is from a reviewer like yourself and others who listened “long term” to a certain component in their own system, and after returning it found there was “something missing” and went out and bought that component, then comes the problem of evaluating and measuring it against the component it replaced and finding something to put a finger on and saying “that’s what made the difference” ?

 

[gregorio]

I do not state ABX or other switching cannot be long passages, but that they do not give good results, again agreeing with you.

Yes but isn't it a given that you won't get good, reliable results if you're using a test incorrectly or entirely the wrong test in the first place?

However I disagree that fast switching is best for determining what I am talking about, the rhythmic and harmonic progression. It interrupts them if the 2 or more samples are different.

Why would it interrupt them? Why can't you play the whole progression and then fast switch to another whole progression? And, why would fast switching to another whole progression be worse than slow switching to another whole progression? That's exactly what we do with ABX, it's just that the whole progression or enough of it, would typically be just a few seconds in duration rather than the 10's of seconds or minutes of a rhythmic or harmonic progression.

What I am asking, not arguing, the other experts here is how to scientifically test this.

I am simply asking if there is a better reliable test we can come up with that can test these characteristics, which are after all most important. I fully expected the reaction I got, but take a moment. Apart from the misuse of the term ABX when I meant unit under test blind switching ...

OK, so you're asking how to test for differences in rhythmic and harmonic progression when blind testing units? Both of these things are necessarily functions of audio properties that can be measured. "Rhythm" is the reoccurring pattern of strong and weak beats over time and a rhythmic progression is therefore a progression from one rhythmic pattern to another (then potentially on to another, ad infinitum). Rhythm is therefore fundamentally an issue of timing, because what differentiates one rhythm from another is where in time those strong and weak beats occur. Likewise, harmonic progression refers to the juxtaposition and progression of a sequence of chords and a chord is typically 3 simultaneous different notes (although it may contain only 2 notes or many more than 3). Harmonic progression is therefore fundamentally an issue of frequency, because what differentiates one chord from another and one chord progression from another are the different notes those chords contain.

It is not difficult to devise a test for timing or one for frequency, however it's pointless to blind test units/components for differences in rhythmic or harmonic progression because the scale of the differences is so vastly different. For example, differences in rhythmic patterns and progressions are several milli-secs at a minimum and typically in the tens and hundreds of milli-sec range. Such timing differences do not occur with say DACs or amps, timing differences of DACs are more than a million times lower than that and at that level don't manifest as timing differences anyway, but as very low level (inaudible) noise/distortion. Similar problem with harmonic progression, the scale of the frequency difference needed to change a chord (or progression of chords) is vastly greater than any DAC or amp ever produces. The potential exception here could be a tube amp that adds a very large amount of distortion/IMD relatively low in the audible spectrum, potentially enough to effectively add another note to the chord/s. I'm not sure if there are any consumer amps that do that, although over-driven guitar amps sometimes do. Even HPs/Speakers don't do that, although they might potentially change the balance of the notes in a chord enough to cause the perception of a marginally different chord/progression.

G

 

[bigshot]

I think a very long listening sample would be the best way to determine if I like a particular sound signature. Determining whether there’s a difference between two very similar sounds would be best done by flicking between the two and seeing if I can detect a difference.

 

[Powermankw]

Firstly, it's not everybody who's wrong in this subforum, just the one or few. And, if you venture out of this thread, then most are about how things work but again, there is very commonly/typically at least one person who contradicts the facts based on some audiophile myth/marketing or perceptual error.

I can't show you that, can you show me the part of the scientific method where it states we should tolerate trolls and those trying to pervert the science? Don't such people get ostracised from the scientific community? How would science have progressed if they weren't? In the actual world of scientists, there are plenty of arguments, acrimony, condescension, etc.

It is if we are talking about DACs, amps, etc. A DAC or amp for example does not have a human brain, it has no personality or perception, it is just a bunch of electronic circuits. ....

News flash, audio is an electrical signal and/or digital data. Audio reproduction is the reproduction of that signal/data and humans can't hear an electrical signal or digital data, so how can they enjoy it? Humans do like music but music is sound, not audio, sound and audio are different forms of energy. If we are to scientifically (or just logically/factually) consider the different components of an audio/sound system, then we have to consider the difference between audio and sound and only then can we consider the perception of sound.

What reliable/objective evidence are you basing this last sentence on? Aren't you doing exactly what you are accusing me of? To your actual points though:

1. Again, audio cannot be heard by humans, only sound can be heard.
2. No, many listen to sound for the joy of it, they cannot listen to audio for the joy of it. Certainly many create audio recordings for the joy of it and sometimes not only for the joy of it but also to earn a living. Again though, that's not really the audio they're taking joy from, but the reproduction of sound from that audio.
3. No, I am stuck in the trees and the forest, while you seem stuck in only a patch of the forest and are not considering either the trees or the whole forest! For example, test tones, random noise and jack hammers obviously can be represented by audio and are created by humans. And, particularly the last two are done for the joy of it, joy of both the creators and listeners. Music is just a sub-set of enjoyable/entertaining commercial sound, what about the larger sub-set of commercially created audio, TV and film sound, which typically includes the creation and use of random noise and occasionally even the sound of jack hammers? Doesn't anyone create or consume films and TV for the joy of it? Of course, there's also the area of telecommunications. It seems like you maybe stuck in just a small patch of the forest! What happens if we take the audio of a film's sound or a telephone conversation and feed it through an audiophile DAC and amp? Does it get reproduced horribly distorted or not reproduced at all because they only deal with music? Ironically, I started as a professional musician, then created music recordings commercially, have worked in the TV and film industry for several decades and in the project before last, spent about 2 days creating the sound of a jack hammer and longer than that creating random noise, for my joy (and payment of course) and the joy of those watching and listening the film.

That's false! I've got absolutely no problem with discussions about the forest, indeed I've had many discussions about the forest and even started threads about the forest here myself. I've only got a problem when people repeatedly make false assertions about the trees, based on faulty assumptions about a small part of the forest!

And yet even Spock occasionally made illogical, emotional responses ... and I'm not a Vulcan!

I don't "just ridicule", I educate, share my interest in audio science and learn from others. The ONLY time I ridicule is in response to ridicule and the repeated ridiculous, and even then, it's only after sharing the audio science/facts (without ridicule).

G

OK

 

[jagwap]

Yes but isn't it a given that you won't get good, reliable results if you're using a test incorrectly or entirely the wrong test in the first place?

Why would it interrupt them? Why can't you play the whole progression and then fast switch to another whole progression? And, why would fast switching to another whole progression be worse than slow switching to another whole progression? That's exactly what we do with ABX, it's just that the whole progression or enough of it, would typically be just a few seconds in duration rather than the 10's of seconds or minutes of a rhythmic or harmonic progression.


OK, so you're asking how to test for differences in rhythmic and harmonic progression when blind testing units? Both of these things are necessarily functions of audio properties that can be measured. "Rhythm" is the reoccurring pattern of strong and weak beats over time and a rhythmic progression is therefore a progression from one rhythmic pattern to another (then potentially on to another, ad infinitum). Rhythm is therefore fundamentally an issue of timing, because what differentiates one rhythm from another is where in time those strong and weak beats occur. Likewise, harmonic progression refers to the juxtaposition and progression of a sequence of chords and a chord is typically 3 simultaneous different notes (although it may contain only 2 notes or many more than 3). Harmonic progression is therefore fundamentally an issue of frequency, because what differentiates one chord from another and one chord progression from another are the different notes those chords contain.

It is not difficult to devise a test for timing or one for frequency, however it's pointless to blind test units/components for differences in rhythmic or harmonic progression because the scale of the differences is so vastly different. For example, differences in rhythmic patterns and progressions are several milli-secs at a minimum and typically in the tens and hundreds of milli-sec range. Such timing differences do not occur with say DACs or amps, timing differences of DACs are more than a million times lower than that and at that level don't manifest as timing differences anyway, but as very low level (inaudible) noise/distortion. Similar problem with harmonic progression, the scale of the frequency difference needed to change a chord (or progression of chords) is vastly greater than any DAC or amp ever produces. The potential exception here could be a tube amp that adds a very large amount of distortion/IMD relatively low in the audible spectrum, potentially enough to effectively add another note to the chord/s. I'm not sure if there are any consumer amps that do that, although over-driven guitar amps sometimes do. Even HPs/Speakers don't do that, although they might potentially change the balance of the notes in a chord enough to cause the perception of a marginally different chord/progression.

G

Not quiet. An example I can give is say a crossover. A typical 24 dB/oct Linkwitz-Riley 80Hz crossover causes over 5mS of timing error around the crossover range, whether it be done in analogue or digital domain, due to group delay. So if EQ can do this, so can the HP limits of a product. Speakers with infinite baffle tend to have less group delay in low frequencies than port speakers. I know some smart acoustic engineers who know how to minimise this effect, but most don't. They just grab the low cost low frequency boost. This is all know about, but often overlooked.

 

[PhonoPhi]

For high fidelity tube amps, yes. It’s even possible for tube amps to be audibly as balanced and clean as solid state. Lower fidelity tube amps have audible levels of euphonic distortion on top of response imbalances. That would require a DSP to produce.

Since it is supposed to be the "scientific" forum, I could not help asking: how cutting or emphasizing different order harmonics can be classified as " fidelity". (If the "perfect" tubes exist- why to use them would be a simple pragmatic question).
Please explain kindly, as "scientifically" as you can.

 

[Dogmatrix]

Since it is supposed to be the "scientific" forum, I could not help asking: how cutting or emphasizing different order harmonics can be classified as " fidelity". (If the "perfect" tubes exist- why to use them would be a simple pragmatic question).
Please explain kindly, as "scientifically" as you can.

If the goal is highest fidelity for a given investment tubes would be silly scientifically
Highest fidelity is not always the desired outcome

 

[bigshot]

Since it is supposed to be the "scientific" forum, I could not help asking: how cutting or emphasizing different order harmonics can be classified as " fidelity".

High Fidelity means that it meets or exceeds the thresholds of human hearing. It doesn’t mean theoretically perfect. There are audibly transparent tube amps. They aren’t all designed to introduce coloration. A high fidelity tube amp can be audibly identical to a solid state amp even though that solid state amp measures much better.

It’s obviously much more efficient to just buy a solid state amp if your goal is high fidelity, but tube options do exist. I think a lot of the appeal of tubes has nothing to do with practicality nor sound. I think some people just have a fetish for tubes.

 

[PhonoPhi]

High Fidelity means that it meets or exceeds the thresholds of human hearing. It doesn’t mean theoretically perfect. There are audibly transparent tube amps. They aren’t all designed to introduce coloration. A high fidelity tube amp can be audibly identical to a solid state amp even though that solid state amp measures much better.

It’s obviously much more efficient to just buy a solid state amp if your goal is high fidelity, but tube options do exist. I think a lot of the appeal of tubes has nothing to do with practicality nor sound. I think some people just have a fetish for tubes.

The physics of the tubes is such that they are lacking odd harmonics (making them "euphonic" to many), so it is really hard to understand what would be "high-fidelity" tubes, the tubes with some DSP that evens out harmonics (?)
So, arguably, "fidelity" and tube amps do not fit well together.

 

[Dogmatrix]

The physics of the tubes is such that they are lacking odd harmonics (making them "euphonic" to many), so it is really hard to understand what would be "high-fidelity" tubes, the tubes with some DSP that evens out harmonics (?)
So, arguably, "fidelity" and tube amps do not fit well together.

Brilliant plan , I take my expensive custom tube amp specifically designed to colour, run it through my equally expensive RME to dsp out the colour
Result a simulation of a simple ss amp costing maybe 1/10

 

[PhonoPhi]

Brilliant plan , I take my expensive custom tube amp specifically designed to colour, run it through my equally expensive RME to dsp out the colour
Result a simulation of a simple ss amp costing maybe 1/10

Irony on irony is super ironic indeed.
My point was about the use of " fidelity " - to cut through the irony just in case.

 

[Dogmatrix]

Irony on irony is super ironic indeed.
My point was about " fidelity " use - to cut through irony just in case.

But seriously folks
Back in the day tubes were all there was so amp designers did strive for fidelity and companies like Dynaco , Marantz , Pilot built some legendary designs that still stand today
With the rise of solid state fidelity became much cheaper so market forces favoured tube designs that accentuate tube character over fidelity

 

[bigshot]

Another is McIntosh. There are transparent tube amps. They aren’t all colored. It isn’t a magic tube with a DSP, it’s a design that prioritizes fidelity.

As I said, some tube amps sound just as clean and balanced as solid state amps do.