Demagnetising LP's & cd's

[Fnuckle]

It may well be a myth, which is why I said 'if anything'.
You choose to explain away this myth in a very plausible way, explaining the distance between the various parts of the brain and doubting that there could be any link between them. Yet, in audio we are expected to accept many myths, despite similarly convincing argument and evidence to the contrary. I'm afraid you cannot have it both ways!

Touché!

I don't doubt there's a link between these sections, I question it. I am open to the suggestion that there may be a link, but currently such a link is outside our scientific purview. But new developments in neuroimaging happen all the time.

Interestingly, we used to think the cognitive pathways of speech and music were identical, until someone noticed that we have pitch-sensitive neurons in an entirely different part of the brain. The idea had been posited because our reaction to music is so different to our reaction to speech, but there was just too much convincing evidence to the contrary.

As for speaker designers not recognising their own designs, again it simply shows that their design is not sufficiently distinctive within the test group.
The situation you describe should only occur where other speakers offer a similar performance or have similar character.

Another explanation is that perhaps their speaker isn't doing quite what they believe and expect. It is very easy to spend time designing something and becoming convinced in the process that what you are achieving is unique, or doing something exceptionally well. In a group, and up against peer products that might not be the case.

Lastly, if a speaker truly is very 'different' and the designer cannot identify this, I'm afraid I'd have to conclude that the designer doesn't understand what he has created, or is deaf to what he has created. Stress and pressures from blind testing come way down the list of probable reasons.

I don't hold to the idea that blind tests are stressors. Those who sit on blind tests usually do so regularly enough to eliminate any potential stressful nature permeating the test results. Nevertheless, it still seems odd that someone who knows the curves of their own loudspeaker better than they know the curves of their own wife should fail to recognise those curves in a line-up. Especially if they can also recognise the 'signature' of another designer consistently.

 

[sq225917]

Consider the brain like any other computer, one with limited resources and bandwidth. Remove the eyes from the equation and there's more to go round.

You might not be using graphics ram for other processes, but there's less traffic on the motherboard, so to speak.

 

[Richard Dunn]

Consider the brain like any other computer, one with limited resources and bandwidth. Remove the eyes from the equation and there's more to go round.

You might not be using graphics ram for other processes, but there's less traffic on the motherboard, so to speak.

This is such nonsense it is hardly worth responding to. But if you find me a computer that has a *desire* to listen to music, and responds to it with an *emotional* reaction then this could be partially taken seriously.

 

[Pure Sound]

You are unlikely to find this now. It was done in the mid-1990s and not published online.

http://www.mediafire.com/?1klci7xofcxrkg7

Having participated in that test I can remember a fairly unanimous approval for the only pure silver speaker cable in this particular group. (Audio Note)

It was readily & repeatably identifiable.

It only failed to be awarded a 'Best Buy' because it was far too expensive (by the standards of the time).

 

[Fnuckle]

http://www.mediafire.com/?1klci7xofcxrkg7

Having participated in that test I can remember a fairly unanimous approval for the only pure silver speaker cable in this particular group. (Audio Note)

It was readily & repeatably identifiable.

It only failed to be awarded a 'Best Buy' because it was far too expensive (by the standards of the time).

Thanks for that. I remember reading it, but the details were scrambled due to time dilation effects. (Edit: I might have been referring to this and a later edition and mixing the findings up).

A pity no-one still does this, but I guess money's tight and opinions hardened over time (those who think cables make a difference would likely dismiss this test as too much science today, while those who don't would tear it to shreds on principle).

 

[bottleneck]

Not pulling it to threads - asking for enlightenment from the technically knowledgable.

Can someone tell me how under ''how the tests were done'' section of the article the use of the specified DPA amplifier allowed them to test the cable against ''no cable'' ?

Im sure this will make sense to some. I would like to know the advantages and disadvantages of this methodology of test.

 

[Pure Sound]

There's a difference in the state of mind when listening to a number of different things be they CD players, amplifiers, bits of wire, as opposed to an ABX test. I'm not sure why. But, having seen people repeatedly being able to identify said items blind (and having done it myself) I find suggestions that such differences were imaginary quite amusing.

Chris. Paul Miller would be able to explain it better but the way the power amp worked, the Deltec cables it used were effectively within and part of the amplifiers circuit (including the feedback) so when speakers were attached you were coupling the amplifier directly to them without cables having an additional effect. Adding further sets of speaker cable beyond the ends of the Deltec pieces meant that you could hear what the additional cable was adding or subtracting.

The Deltec (even with its cabling) was never my favourite sounding amplifier but, for the purposes of this test, the arrangement including their cables worked well enough.

 

[chefren]

I have read a Master's thesis (in Finnish) comparing tow blind testing techniques.

A panel of seven listeners, each with at least 10 years experience as either a hobbyist, a professional journalist or salesman of hifi was chosen to participate. One of the panel was disqualified because he was not happy with the arrangement and unsure of his results. The remaining panel therefore consisted of six people.

They compared two amplifiers, one by Onkyo and one from Audionet, the Audionet one being significantly more expensive. Both amplifiers measured well and close enough to each other not to give any reason to suspect any differences.

In ABX tests, none of the panel members could discern the amps from each other. The "best" result was 13 correct out of 20 tries.

A second test was performed. This test was a blind AB test where the panel was asked to individually score both amps on a scale of 1-5 for six different characteristics. They still did not know which amp was which and what the other panel members had scored.

The characteristics were:

1. Overall resolution and detail
2. Overall neutrality / balance
3. Dynamics and transient response, "speed"
4. Soundstage
5. Liveliness and presence
6. Overall sound quality

The scores were per amp (format is score (standard deviation)):

Audionet

1: 3.7 (0.9)
2: 4 (0.6)
3: 3.5 (0.5)
4: 3.8 (0.4)
5: 3.7(0.9)
6: 3.3 (0.8)

Onkyo

1: 2.3 (0.9)
2: 2.3 (0.5)
3: 2.3 (0.9)
4: 2.0 (0.6)
5: 2.5 (1.0)
6: 2.6 (1.1)

The statistical significance of the differences were:

1: .084
2: .013
3: .042
4: .013
5: .101
6: .172

The results for 2,3 and 4 are statistically significant (p<.05).

So while no differences were found using the ABX test, some were found using an AB blind test and a more descriptive comparison method. This seems to throw ABX tests in a less than favourable light when differences are small.

The thesis (in Finnish) is available as an attachment to the first post in this thread:

http://www.hifiharrastajat.org/forum/index.php?topic=1026918.0

 

[Fnuckle]

I have read a Master's thesis (in Finnish) comparing tow blind testing techniques.

A panel of seven listeners, each with at least 10 years experience as either a hobbyist, a professional journalist or salesman of hifi was chosen to participate. One of the panel was disqualified because he was not happy with the arrangement and unsure of his results. The remaining panel therefore consisted of six people.

They compared two amplifiers, one by Onkyo and one from Audionet, the Audionet one being significantly more expensive. Both amplifiers measured well and close enough to each other not to give any reason to suspect any differences.

In ABX tests, none of the panel members could discern the amps from each other. The "best" result was 13 correct out of 20 tries.

A second test was performed. This test was a blind AB test where the panel was asked to individually score both amps on a scale of 1-5 for six different characteristics. They still did not know which amp was which and what the other panel members had scored.

The characteristics were:

1. Overall resolution and detail
2. Overall neutrality / balance
3. Dynamics and transient response, "speed"
4. Soundstage
5. Liveliness and presence
6. Overall sound quality

The scores were per amp (format is score (standard deviation)):

Audionet

1: 3.7 (0.9)
2: 4 (0.6)
3: 3.5 (0.5)
4: 3.8 (0.4)
5: 3.7(0.9)
6: 3.3 (0.8)

Onkyo

1: 2.3 (0.9)
2: 2.3 (0.5)
3: 2.3 (0.9)
4: 2.0 (0.6)
5: 2.5 (1.0)
6: 2.6 (1.1)

The statistical significance of the differences were:

1: .084
2: .013
3: .042
4: .013
5: .101
6: .172

The results for 2,3 and 4 are statistically significant (p<.05).

So while no differences were found using the ABX test, some were found using an AB blind test and a more descriptive comparison method. This seems to throw ABX tests in a less than favourable light when differences are small.

The thesis (in Finnish) is available as an attachment to the first post in this thread:

http://www.hifiharrastajat.org/forum/index.php?topic=1026918.0

Thanks for that. Interesting. I've long been suspicious of the insistence in using ABX as the only arbiter of audibility.

 

[titian]

My opinion is that the candidates must be prepared for an audio blind test just like you prepare yourself for a exam (degree).

They should have the possibility to listen as long as they want with the exact system and at the exact place of the test. They should do there own attemps of making their own blindtests (like the test examens to perpare the right one), they must be let the chance to find out why they didn't pass their small blindtest and they should be able to repeat the procedure until they either give up and notice that they cannot detect differences or up to they realize the way to detect the differences in a blind test situation.
To pass a blind test the first time the differences must be quite huge. The differences are mainly in those sound characteristics which most of us are mostly sensible.

For detecting smaller differences a major analysis (mental) is involved and most of the time this analysis is wrong. The candidate must do the check of his analysis (passing his own blind tests) and have the time to revise his faulty analysis (when you make a mistake in a test exam, you check what's wrong and try to correct it).
In some cases I had to do 20-30 blind tests (most of them failed) before I find out where to detect the differences. After done that it is possible to pass most of the blind tests for that case (system + environment).

There are two easiest way of reacting to anegative blind test result:
- blind tests don't mean anything: who cares
- there were no differences

Another approach is to find out why you can't hear a difference during a blind test.
That means checking what you (not) hear unblinded and what you (not) hear during a blind test.

 

[Alan Brown]

As for the HFC cable tests, I simply do not accept that you could insert electrically similar cables into the system you describe and get differences under blind conditions. It is not possible, and unless I see this test for myself I will question the procedure and the findings.

I have no such issue with differences being shown under blind testing with amps, dacs, speakers or indeed any electronics, but as I said earlier, there will always be a perfectly rational explanation.

Rob, I am in no position to question these tests as they are beyond my experience and before my time ( perhaps my young hearing isn't dulled)...but your response is surely telling.

We subjectivists who are happy to skip the methodical stage & simply listen will always frustrate you, as we have satisfied ourselves that we hear the differences we base our opinions on. There is the expectation bias that is your nemesis - no matter what reasoning is employed we expect to hear differences based on previous experience. (No-one is claiming to be immune to deception or loaded demos etc) That is why we hear differences between equipment, cables and whatever else, sometimes to our own surprise.

Your expectation bias is equally strong, and evident in your post above. You - also based on previous experience - expect not to hear any difference - any difference referred to is placed on trial by you (with your expectation bias) and subjected to rigorous & adversarial cross-examination, which is enough to kill any sensitivity to music stone dead. Therefore you hear no difference.

I simply make the point that the very stance you take puts you at odds with the musical experience, the process you employ out of necessity damages the musical experience and pressurises the listener (well, it would me) to be specific and precise about what is being listened for. To be so is hard even in home conditions - you must surely have noted that home listening without any critical or analytical element beyond the music is far more enjoyable than evaluating a piece of kit.

The methodical approach is so gross, so crude, it is imv only useful for testing active monitors.

 

[Richard Dunn]

My opinion is that the candidates must be prepared for an audio blind test just like you prepare yourself for a exam (degree).

They should have the possibility to listen as long as they want with the exact system and at the exact place of the test. They should do there own attemps of making their own blindtests (like the test examens to perpare the right one), they must be let the chance to find out why they didn't pass their small blindtest and they should be able to repeat the procedure until they either give up and notice that they cannot detect differences or up to they realize the way to detect the differences in a blind test situation.
To pass a blind test the first time the differences must be quite huge. The differences are mainly in those sound characteristics which most of us are mostly sensible.

For detecting smaller differences a major analysis (mental) is involved and most of the time this analysis is wrong. The candidate must do the check of his analysis (passing his own blind tests) and have the time to revise his faulty analysis (when you make a mistake in a test exam, you check what's wrong and try to correct it).
In some cases I had to do 20-30 blind tests (most of them failed) before I find out where to detect the differences. After done that it is possible to pass most of the blind tests for that case (system + environment).

There are two easiest way of reacting to anegative blind test result:
- blind tests don't mean anything: who cares
- there were no differences

Another approach is to find out why you can't hear a difference during a blind test.
That means checking what you (not) hear unblinded and what you (not) hear during a blind test.

This is why after 40 years experience of it I am convinced it is a pointless waste of time, and all anyone ever needs to do is listen to their music in their room with different gear within their financial and time constraints, and make their own decisions. Ignoring the industry brainwashing so heavily imposed on us for so many years - so individual choice! - in other words "vive le difference".

 

[titian]

Ignoring the industry brainwashing so heavily imposed on us for so many years - so individual choice! - in other words "vive le difference".

There is not only industry brainwashing in every branch but also lots of political brainwashing which I think is even worse.

 

[bottleneck]

Hi Alan

I have met Rob several times. I would say he is as willing to hear differences between products as anyone else I have ever met.

If he has expectation bias, then it seems firmly grounded in knowledge gained through both listening and a technical understanding.

You also seem reasonably technical aware Alan (although of course we have not met).

As Rob pointed out in another post/another thread - knowledge of audio circuits, what should make a difference where/when - the education of the consumer in regard of basic technical tenants appears to have decreased in recent years.

Many subjectivists I have met (many, but my no means all I want to stress (!!) ) have no technical understanding. The mantra ''don't test, just listen!!'' seems all to frequently quoted... I under my breath often think '' that is because this is all you are currently capable of, you simply don' t have any understanding or ability to do anything else (!)" ....

I readily and openly admit holes in my personal knowledge, and am slowly and surely filling these holes over time.

Terms such as .... ''snake oil''


..other such dismissive terms are often bandied because it's awfully easy to befuddle, confuse and obfuscate detail with marketing hype and trade wordsmanship.

Those with little understanding of their hobby cling to industry key words like limpets hanging onto a rock. These words become today's ''must have'' marketing terms.

Are you ...

digital ready ?

(I feel ready. How about you?)

Does your speaker have 6 sockets on the back for tri-amping?

(is it that difficult to drive I need 3 amps I ask!)

Do you upsample? oversample? or use non-oversampling?



My wish?
I'm sick of ''subjectivism'' I'm sick also of ''objectivism''. As Rob was indicating I believe, the answer is not to dismiss a forum's readership with alienating slurs.

How about new words - 'educating - for informed decision making' ?

 

[Fnuckle]

I'm sick of ''subjectivism'' I'm sick also of ''objectivism''.

I agree. How about 'qualitative' and 'quantitive'? Or 'observational' and 'technical'? These don't seem so loaded or inflammatory.

 

[Richard Dunn]

Hi Alan

How about new words - 'educating - for informed decision making' ?

That education is listening to music.

 

[Fnuckle]

As Rob pointed out in another post/another thread - knowledge of audio circuits, what should make a difference where/when - the education of the consumer in regard of basic technical tenants appears to have decreased in recent years.

Many subjectivists I have met (many, but my no means all I want to stress (!!) ) have no technical understanding. The mantra ''don't test, just listen!!'' seems all to frequently quoted... I under my breath often think '' that is because this is all you are currently capable of, you simply don' t have any understanding or ability to do anything else (!)" ....

But hi-fi is not - and should not be - a technocracy. If someone wants to buy hi-fi because they love music, would like it to sound good and have access to the money required to complete the transaction, they have met the conditions required.

An understanding of the specifications, and how those specifications shape the selection of products in the system is handy, but in most cases academic.

 

[sq225917]

This is such nonsense it is hardly worth responding to. But if you find me a computer that has a *desire* to listen to music, and responds to it with an *emotional* reaction then this could be partially taken seriously.

Do you think you could be a little more eloquent in describing what it was that you found so objectionable in the comparison I gave likening the limited data bandwidth of the human brain to the limited data bandwidth of a computer motherboard?

 

[bottleneck]

But hi-fi is not - and should not be - a technocracy. If someone wants to buy hi-fi because they love music, would like it to sound good and have access to the money required to complete the transaction, they have met the conditions required.

An understanding of the specifications, and how those specifications shape the selection of products in the system is handy, but in most cases academic.

Hi Fnuckle

I can agree with this, in part.

One could draw (in your favour) a parallel with the motor car. You could say that you need know no more than to service the vehicle annually and fill it with petrol.. it would not stop somebody from buying a car.

Owning several thousand pounds would enable somebody to walk into a dealership and spend several thousand pounds on audio equipment. Perhaps as a 'trade member' you'd be in favour



The parallel with the motor car fails in many ways.

Most notably, it's not an industry quite so enamored with the aforementioned 'snake-oil'. Motoring magazines when reviewing cars do not reccomend spending thousands of pounds on changing spark plugs in new vehicles.

Motor cars are (generally speaking) sufficiently well understood and sufficiently mass-market that advertisers and marketing speak very rarely falls into technically 'dodgy' territory.

I'm sure you would agree however that our industry is rife with unproven and untested claims.

I have reached my own conclusions in areas where I feel I have read enough, tried enough (and yes used my ears too) to make informed decisions.

I'm not asking anyone to agree with my assertions - in fact I really do not have an opinion on the thoughts of others.



In summary, I am trying to say -


Educating the consumer can ONLY be a good thing, in my view.



Life is hard, and the world is tough.
Those with money and little knowledge (and a wish to buy high-end hifi) walk into a lions den.

 

[Richard Dunn]

Hi Fnuckle
Most notably, it's not an industry quite so enamored with the aforementioned 'snake-oil'. Motoring magazines when reviewing cars do not reccomend spending thousands of pounds on changing spark plugs in new vehicles.

I think this is the crux of the problem the confusion between people who rip you off - Subjectivists - and people who are honest and upright dealers - Objectivists.
They are not the same thing. Lets face it there are many snake oil second hand car dealers and there are many snake oil hi-fi crooks as well - so blame greed and human nature, it has got nothing to do with using your ears or not.