measurement bollocks.

The Linn 'Tune Dem' is an attempt to encourage people to listen to the music as a whole rather than dissect it in a hi-fi sense. For example, many people judge hi-fi on quantitative, rather than, qualitative, grounds - for example, they equate lots of top end with increased detail and lots of bass with dynamic. Alternatively, they listen to the soudstaging, the decay of a note, whether the piano 'sounds' like a Steinway - but fail to notice that the sound is as dynamically flat as a pancake etc.

____________________________________________

If you read someone stating that they can't tell the difference between a £4 bottle of wine and a £20 bottle of wine, would you conclude that there was no discernible difference or would you conclude that the individuals pallet was not currently sufficiently discerning to tell the difference?
 
[

____________________________________________

If you read someone stating that they can't tell the difference between a £4 bottle of wine and a £20 bottle of wine, would you conclude that there was no discernible difference or would you conclude that the individuals pallet was not currently sufficiently discerning to tell the difference?[/QUOTE]

Neither,I would simply say that "price" was the least satisfactory way of telling if a wine was any good or not.
 
Indeed; perhaps I should simply have stated two different bottles of wine. However, you will note that I didn't say that my hypothetical taster couldn't tell which was the better, or which was the more expensive - just that he could not discern a difference, at all, between the two.
 
RobHolt said:
Selling magazines perhaps?
Click to expand...


I disagree with your findings from your test methodology, I question your methodology, but I do not question the veracity of your findings.

I think you should extend the same to others.

Think about what you have just impugned. In stating what you just did you did not question HFC's methods, you suggested their core methodology was a lie because it disagrees with your findings.

I view that as supremely arrogant. I would suspect HFC would view it as 'defamatory'.
 
RobHolt said:
Your specific comment re null tests on pots is incorrect.
The test is performed on the pot - the single passive component - not any supporting circuit or filter.
So take an Alps and Noble 20k log pot and a nul test is perfectly valid when both are inserted into the same circuit.
Click to expand...


That's great, it tells you what two components sounds like in one circuit, not that both of them actually 'sound the same'. Only that in the circuit under test that they don't sound any different.

you do understand the difference between saying 'these pots sound the same' and these pots sound the same in this circuit?
 
sq225917 said:
That's great, it tells you what two components sounds like in one circuit, not that both of them actually 'sound the same'. Only that in the circuit under test that they don't sound any different.

you do understand the difference between saying 'these pots sound the same' and these pots sound the same in this circuit?
Click to expand...

Yes, but you clearly don't Simon as again you haven't understood the basics.
No wonder you think measurements are bollox.

The two pots have the same basic specification other than perhaps L/R matching.
They will therefore perform in exactly the same way no matter what the circuit.

You can get anal about things and split hairs over tiny differences in stray capacitance if you like, but in the vast majority of circuits (and I mean vast) it won't matter one jot, being swamped by what is already in circuit.
 
I'm not even sure what people are arguing about any more, lol :(

I think generally if there is a difference between two pieces of equipment then it can be measured, even if it is just a spectral representation of a null test.
 
Noble and Alps are both carbon track pots.

There is an audible difference between a carbon track pot, a resistor based attenuator and a transformer based attenuator, and again, with an LDR attenuator.

Whether this will come out in measurements I do not know. I presume it will, as the differences are very obvious.
 
Fnuckle said:
I disagree with your findings from your test methodology, I question your methodology, but I do not question the veracity of your findings.

I think you should extend the same to others.

Think about what you have just impugned. In stating what you just did you did not question HFC's methods, you suggested their core methodology was a lie because it disagrees with your findings.

I view that as supremely arrogant. I would suspect HFC would view it as 'defamatory'.
Click to expand...

You yourself have stated on this forum that you (and presumably others) can get blind tests to produce a desired result. You've used it in response to my arguments often enough.
I've not seen a HFC test in action, but given your stated opinion it isn't beyond the bounds of reason that the same reasoning is at play.

A magazine finding that lots of equipment sounds the same doesn't last very long.

Their results are rather at odds with most testing that has been published. Perhaps they are doing something wrong.
Do they still do them?
Thought they'd given up a while ago.

Fnuckle said:
No, my first statement illustrates perfectly that you have no fun button to press.

My second highlights the fact that if the sound of components were as similar as you claim that they are, there would be no 'what's wrong with my system' comments. The fact that so many people are unhappy with the sound of their systems demonstrates that:

1. People in the industry aren't doing their jobs properly, and
2. The things that you dismiss as unimportant in a system, aren't
Click to expand...

Silly comments about a guy's hearing ability don't press my fun button, you are correct.

Your second point makes no sense.
Many people are unhappy with the sound of their systems becasue of quite fundamental and gross errors. Often badly set up rooms and poor loudspeaker placement. Plain bad speakers or if a TT is in use, then less than good cartridge set-up is another common fault. They then visit forums or contact a magazine and get told that the cure for boomy bass is a cable change, or swapping one perfeclty good amplifier for another etc.

There's your source of unhappiness.
 
bottleneck said:
Noble and Alps are both carbon track pots.

There is an audible difference between a carbon track pot, a resistor based attenuator and a transformer based attenuator, and again, with an LDR attenuator.

Whether this will come out in measurements I do not know. I presume it will, as the differences are very obvious.
Click to expand...

Certainly a transformer based attenuator can perform differently to a pot- but it isn't a pot and you are comparing apples to oranges.

They measure very differently.

Comparing two carbon pots of the same basic value (important) should reveal no audible difference at all, and wont in a blind test however tight you make the procedure.
 
Tenson said:
I'm not even sure what people are arguing about any more, lol
Click to expand...

Yep. That's how I roll. I don't even know what I am arguing about, but at least I agree with myself that I disagree with myself.

It's the only way to keep up with the audio schizophrenia.
 
RobHolt said:
Certainly a transformer based attenuator can perform differently to a pot- but it isn't a pot and you are comparing apples to oranges.

They measure very differently.

Comparing two carbon pots of the same basic value (important) should reveal no audible difference at all, and wont in a blind test however tight you make the procedure.
Click to expand...

I am not technical by nature as you know.

Is a resistor based passive (stepped attenuator) an apples to apples comparison with a carbon track pot?

These sound different too.
 
bottleneck said:
I am not technical by nature as you know.

Is a resistor based passive (stepped attenuator) an apples to apples comparison with a carbon track pot?

These sound different too.
Click to expand...

No I'd say those fall into the same category Chris.
One has a sliding wiper and one has a fixed point but if you model them you get the same thing in terms of what the circuit at either end is seeing.
 
Fnuckle said:
Yep. That's how I roll. I don't even know what I am arguing about, but at least I agree with myself that I disagree with myself.

It's the only way to keep up with the audio schizophrenia.
Click to expand...

Hehe, you sound like my friend Howard. He always said his method for winning an argument is persistence, until the other person gets tired or forgets what point they were trying to make.

Chris, as Rob says a TVC and LDR will measure differently to a pot or resistor, although if that is audible is another question. At least there is something to try and hear.

When it comes to resistive pots, even if they are made of different materials, there should be so minimal difference in the audio range it will almost certainly be inaudible. That is of course if they are all set to the same resistance and the circuit they are in is not uncommon like passing loads of current that makes heat and noise.

I get the impression a lot of disagreement started when SQ quoted John Westlake saying he made changes to his CD player that don't make a difference to the measurements but do to the sound. Perhaps an agreement can be had by saying that if there was a difference to be heard, it is possible to measure it, however maybe it didn't make a difference to the measurements John Westlake choose to do at that time. I mean, a null test can't really fail to show something if there is really a difference.
 
RobHolt said:
You yourself have stated on this forum that you (and presumably others) can get blind tests to produce a desired result. You've used it in response to my arguments often enough.
I've not seen a HFC test in action, but given your stated opinion it isn't beyond the bounds of reason that the same reasoning is at play.

A magazine finding that lots of equipment sounds the same doesn't last very long.

Their results are rather at odds with most testing that has been published. Perhaps they are doing something wrong.
Do they still do them?
Thought they'd given up a while ago.
Click to expand...

The results are in perfect alignment with blind tests of the sort they (and you) use. Such tests are used throughout the audio industry... just ask any Japanese engineer who's spent the 1990s listening to the sound of resistors under blind conditions. That they come to different conclusions than yours do suggests that someone's lying, someone's deluding themselves or someone's methodology is not as strong as they think it is. Now, I'm not saying you are wrong and they are right - argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument. But, without something more evidentiary, it just comes down to he-said, he-said banter.

Thing is, you don't have something more evidentiary. Neither do I, but I make no claim toward being 'more scientific'. You do. Which stance is more perfidious?
 
Tenson said:
/
I get the impression a lot of disagreement started when SQ quoted John Westlake .
Click to expand...

Just for accuracy, it was I that quoted JW.
I didn't do it to cause an argument, just to raise the point that not all designers are in the " If I cant measure it, it doesn't exist" camp, although you raise an interesting point... lots of folk say they hear differences, lots don't. Just how small a measured difference is audible? But seeing as we can't even agree that there ARE differences, I guess we will never agree on the scale of difference.....
 
These 'if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist' threads are notoriously circulatory in nature and this one shows no evidence of breaking the mould - can't we move on now?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top