Why is long term listening better for evaluating components?

[bhobba]

My apologies to bhobba and the forum. Comments I made to one of his posts was very tasteless and uncalled for. I am sorry I sent that comment in. Wish I could undo it. I'll see if I can get Chris to remove it.

 

It has been removed but a saw a bit of it in a quote.

 

No need to apologize for language I saw a bit of but of course your consideration for my feelings is much appreciated and I thank you for it.

 

But as to the content of what you write I really do believe you need to hear more actual high end gear. Until you do it's easy to think along the lines you do and believe products made by countless hours of listening tests comparing things those that do not listen to gear think makes no difference such as wire or capacitors are bunkum. It isn't - but there is only one way to find out - you must hear gear built that way on a genuinely revealing system.

 

Thanks

Bill

[esldude]

It has been removed but a saw a bit of it in a quote.

 

No need to apologize for language I saw a bit of but of course your consideration for my feelings is much appreciated and I thank you for it.

 

But as to the content of what you write I really do believe you need to hear more actual high end gear. Until you do it's easy to think along the lines you do and believe products made by countless hours of listening tests comparing things those that do not listen to gear think makes no difference such as wire or capacitors are bunkum. It isn't - but there is only one way to find out - you must hear gear built that way on a genuinely revealing system.

 

Thanks

Bill

 

It is a common complaint to say I should hear more gear when I fail to believe some of the things accepted as common wisdom in high end sound. I have heard quite a bit of good gear. I don't typically get into those discussions as it always seems someone has different ideas about what 'good enough' is.

 

Just as a for instance, there are a not inconsiderable number of people who will say efficient speakers and single ended amps put you where nothing else can. These have some good qualities in some sense, and are easy on the ear. But the technical performance is sorely lacking and many of the good qualities are very much nice colorations those people prefer. I don't say they shouldn't have their preference, but higher fidelity it isn't.

 

And yes I would take pleasing colorations over unpleasant fidelity. With some of the nicer recordings however you don't have to make that choice. With stored correcting curves to some extent you can have the pleasing coloration for bad recordings when it is beneficial and something more faithful to the truth when you have recordings that allow it.

 

As for the gear I have heard, I don't know what you would consider a genuinely revealing system. If you wish to put up some examples I would say I have or have not heard them. Not going to go much beyond that.

 

My own speakers are Soundlab ESL's. Usually considered rather more revealing than average. As you might guess from my moniker, I prefer and have owned a few worthy ESL's over my lifetime. And the not exactly inexpensive amps one needs to get the best from such speakers. The rest of the system was usually commensurate with the back-end.

 

I am not a wealthy person (though not poor). As a result for some 25 years I have purchased second hand, and traded my way up to better equipment. Along the way I have owned some good stuff. I am not entirely inexperienced with a number of pieces of kit of quite high repute. For the most part they deserved the rep too. The Tact in my opinion is something that deserves a much higher reputation than it has for what it can do for an already high resolution system. That opinion born of my experience and not some theoretical wishing has almost universally been written off by other people. Seeing/hearing what results are possible with room correction is what has made me re-think and re-evaluate what is most important for good high fidelity music playback. I don't think it is exotic wires and exotic components to the extent commonly believed though for many years I did.

[esldude]

I should not have trashed a DAC I haven't heard. That is something I usually don't do, and that post was out-of-kilter for me. I do have some reservations about a DAC that uses the old 1541a ladder DAC's in the context of it being a giant killer. From the forum about the Killerdac I found the following:

The KillerDAC is not so much a product, as it is a project. Each and every DAC is slightly different as they are hand built and tweaked. Most are further modified by the owners to experiment with different combinations of parts.

 

The end result of this is an extremely personal experience for every owner. Firstly there is a very real sense of ownership as you have invested your time and money into building your own. Secondly there is a a tremendous bang for buck potential. Thirdly, you get to tap into a fantastic knowledgebase of people here and have some fun along the way.

 

So each is different and hand-built. Nothing at all wrong with that, but makes it somewhat hard to know it as a reference. I have spent time modifying and changing parts in stuff for years and it was useful, rewarding, interesting and fun. Also nothing wrong with it and plenty right.

 

The second paragraph is a potential problem. The building of it is an extremely personal experience. Too easy to admire your own handiwork. I know, I do too. You do have that real sense of ownership when you built it yourself and made decisions about mods to it. And yes, it is also true if you do the right things you can genuinely improve things. It is not always just beauty in the eye of the person who did the work. But that is a thing to be careful about. All fun and all good stuff all the same. And if building your kit adds to your enjoyment then it is a success regardless of the reasons why.

[Julf]

Well, I'd be more cautious here. In terms of differences among amplifiers and DACs, and even possibly cables, I would look to distinctions in speed (transient response) and various forms of noise and distortion (not sure whether all are commonly measured and in specs) at least as much as the frequency response changes you are discussing.

 

The transient response is a direct function of the full-power bandwidth / slew rate. It is interesting that of all the popular music media, vinyl has by far the severest restrictions on speed/power bandwidth, as high frequency amplitude excursion is limited by needle acceleration capabilities.

 

As to noise and distortion, the beauty of signal difference/null testing is that it shows all forms of noise and distortion, independent of the mechanism causing them.

[bhobba]

As for the gear I have heard, I don't know what you would consider a genuinely revealing system. If you wish to put up some examples I would say I have or have not heard them. Not going to go much beyond that.

 

Its not too hard. Go down to a local high end store and ask to hear some of the better systems. Join a local Hi Fi club and listen with others to different systems. Thats how I heard a Killer DAC last Saturday. I also took along some of my gear - a new device called AMG Toppers I own:

*NEW!!* ETI AMG Toppers

 

And some new prototype cables called Ribbonflex a guy I know is working on.

 

I have demoed my AMG's before and in fact have sent a spare pair on a tour here in Aus. Previously everyone that heard them has been amazed at what they do - but not on this showing. Many could hear no difference - but a few could.

 

The Ribbonflex were different. Everyone heard a big difference - greater detail, the bass was cleaner, everything was more immediate and in your face. What polarised was it better - some liked it - others didn't.

 

Its not important if you like or dislike something or even if you don't really care. The issue here is the type of differences you hear. What really concerned me about what you wrote was the claim the type of changes in sound a TACT does is all that necessary to achieve the best sound possible. If you had heard stuff such as the AMG's and Ribbonflex you would know there are factors in achieving the sound that suits a person best way beyond what it can do. Thats why I believe you need to hear more gear especially with others.

 

Thanks

Bill

[Julf]

I also took along some of my gear - a new device called AMG Toppers I own:

*NEW!!* ETI AMG Toppers

 

Have you come across any measurements to verify the AMG Toppers work as claimed? If, as ETI states, they work by affecting the resonances of the loudspeaker enclosure, that effect should most definitely be measurable.

[bhobba]

Have you come across any measurements to verify the AMG Toppers work as claimed? If, as ETI states, they work by affecting the resonances of the loudspeaker enclosure, that effect should most definitely be measurable.

 

No. The effect is usually so obvious no measurements required. The physics of it is also so simple its very easy to see how they do it. Although a guy I lent them to could feel a reduction in vibration by placing a hand on the speaker.

 

Thanks

Bill

[Julf]

No. The effect is usually so obvious no measurements required.

 

Right. My concern was more with verifying the reason why it works is really what the manufacturer thinks/claims it is.

 

The physics of it is also so simple its very easy to see how they do it

 

While I agree the physics of stabilizing / shifting the resonance of a speaker cabinet with a mass such as a brick is simple physics, I am not sure about the physics of the AMG Toppers:

 

"By sitting a smaller weight on a compliant mounting, carefully tuned to a specific resonant frequency, it is able to actively oppose cabinet motion and thus vastly increase the stability of the speaker cabinet or speaker/stand assembly"

 

Although a guy I lent them to could feel a reduction in vibration by placing a hand on the speaker.

 

Well, that is a measurement too, albeit not a very precisely calibrated one

[bhobba]

Just to elaborate how they work its a heavy weight that sits on 4 springy rubber feet. The speaker cone goes back, the speaker goes forward by Newton's third law. The weight wants to stay in place by inertia so the rubber it sits on stretches and exerts a countering force. But since its springy it will be resonant like a weight on the end of a spring and the resonance has been tuned to be audibly the best for speakers. That's why it's better than sitting a dead weight on a speaker - it has been tuned.

 

If you want to know more do a simple google search - there is at least one long thread where all this stuff has been thrashed out. Not that it is really of any value in practice - you simply need to hear it.

 

Thanks

Bill

[Julf]

Just to elaborate how they work its a heavy weight that sits on 4 springy rubber feet. The speaker cone goes back, the speaker goes forward by Newton's third law. The weight wants to stay in place by inertia so the rubber it sits on stretches and exerts a countering force. But since its springy it will be resonant like a weight on the end of a spring and the resonance has been tuned to be audibly the best for speakers. That's why it's better than sitting a dead weight on a speaker - it has been tuned.

 

Thanks - that is pretty much like having any sort of resonator coupled to the loudspeaker cabinet - such as a nearby Helmholtz resonator, of a speaker stand with suitable elasticity.

 

They also seem to have something called "FR Toppers" using "fractal resonance"...

[esldude]

What really concerned me about what you wrote was the claim the type of changes in sound a TACT does is all that necessary to achieve the best sound possible. If you had heard stuff such as the AMG's and Ribbonflex you would know there are factors in achieving the sound that suits a person best way beyond what it can do.

 

There no longer is a local hifi store where I live. Closest are over a 100 miles away. Same for local hifi club. Further my experiences in hifi stores have generally though not always been rather useless.

 

I do have access to systems other people own. Some of them very fine systems with excellent equipment. You seem to have the idea I sat at home all alone developed these ideas in isolation and have heard very little. You don't have the correct idea. It was more the reverse actually.

 

Also I never said the changes in sound from a Tact correction curve is all that is necessary to achieve the best sound possible. What I am saying is some of these tweaks that do seem to work often work for reasons other than claimed. They do often work in some simple understandable ways that often are little more than tweaking frequency response. It has been surprising how often that is all that is really going on. Therefore some such things can be effectively emulated with altering corrections curves. If not exactly to a surprisingly close degree.

 

Frequency response is a first order effect and now can be altered in software with some good precision and minimal ill effects. Doing such things cleans up the results and allow you to get deeper into other problems even those that may not be fixable with such a simple minded approach. But if the simple stuff is allowed to remain it can swamp out other issues. And the basic use of room correction is not some little nice tweak that sounds a bit nicer. It typically results in a large subjective jump in fidelity. Even then there are plenty of real issues that could be improved.

 

As a for instance, the resonance tuning devices you comment upon. A resonance is a response anomaly. Measuring that anomaly and doing a reverse EQ could go a long ways to fixing it without physically fixing the resonance of the speaker. Many such anomalies are minimum phase meaning you can reverse EQ and fix it. And the ability to compensate for that in software can likely be fine tuned to a greater degree than physically tuning a device with limited adjustments. That isn't to say fixing with the AMG topper and then also applying correction wouldn't be even better. One is always better off to have as good a system to start with as possible. The measurements done in such processing could also be used to perhaps see just what the AMG topper is doing, and might allow one to tune it better than doing so just by ear.

[Encore]

Admittedly I had these preconceptions and experiences in mind when I posted this thread. I intended to read without critique whatever anyone else had to say. I intended to only ask questions to illuminate someone's ideas if I wasn't sure. But so far, other than saying I find it better because it is better or some childish personal bickering about positions, I have been disappointed in nothing new offered here.

 

Since I've been a protagonist of long-term testing, I should reply to this thread. But frankly, I'm as puzzled as you. Although I can readily identify the problems with the usual ABX testing, which has been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere, I can't really pinpoint why a new piece of equipment may sound identical to the old one the first day or so, only to sound quite noticeably different after that.

 

Now, if there were a pattern in this, I would readily accept that it's my mind playing tricks on me. But there isn't. Sometimes I do hear a difference, sometimes not. When I do hear a difference, sometimes it's for the better, sometimes for the worse. And this is regardless of my expectations for the new piece (the expectation, of course, being typically related to price).

 

I should point out that I'm not talking about the emotional impact or lack thereof. I'm talking about hearing new details, or getting a bigger soundstage, or some other hifi parameter.

 

I would be happy if somebody could come up with a convincing explanation for my experience. But in the (too) many discussions on ABX testing I've posted in, nobody has so far. Mostly, my statements on this have just been ignored, or some very--indeed very, very--half-hearted attempt has been made to explain as a sort of unconscious negative bias being positively surprised (i.e. the new piece wasn't as bad as I had unconsciously expected). Apparently, someone can seriously believe that even though I'm consciously expecting an improvement, I'm subconsciously not expecting it, and therefore positively surprised by the piece of equipment, even though there isn't any audible difference.

 

Scientifically, this is a very poor explanation model, as I'm sure also the objectivists among us would agree. So please come up with a better one. For now, let's just stick with something uncontroversial, like e.g. amplifiers.

[Jud]

IMO, no amount of digital "Trickery" can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Neither do I believe that you can apply post digital processing, whether in software or hardware , without at least some mild degradation of the original source material .

The high end DAC makers can rest easy. (smile)

Alex

 

High end DACs have made silk purses out of sow's ears re jitter for decades - first with S/PDIF and PLL, then to an even greater extent with async USB.

 

Regarding software, I think users of Audirvana Plus, XXHighEnd, HQPlayer, etc., as well as Barry Diament (regarding use of iZotope sample rate converter in an offline situation, at least) might disagree.

[spdif-usb]

Encore,

 

It has been proven elsewhere that, under stressful conditions, humans often cannot tell the difference between quite surprising things. Perhaps one logical explanation would be the fact the initial excitement wears off over a long period of time, as well as perhaps it takes time for the brain to adapt to several attributes which might somehow interfere with selective perception, conditioning, and which might also somehow cause various contradicting impulses the brain cannot easily filter without slow adaptation and learning.

[sandyk]

Jud

I was replying to this:

A rational, reasonable approach puts one in a position to develop the most emotionally satisfying musical system ever available at a price lower than ever before in history of musical reproduction.

It suggests that you can take a cheap system and make it into an Audiophile type system simply by using digital room equalisation, although I doubt that Dennis meant it quite that way.

Despite what you may wish to believe, you can't just take the digital out from a mediocre CD/DVD player, especially those powered by SMPS, and transform the results into Audiophile grade just by using digital room equalisation.

It may sound far more pleasing, but it will still be well below what can be achieved from high end gear.

 

High end DACs have made silk purses out of sow's ears re jitter for decades

 

High end DACS can certainly improve most sources, but they aren't miracle workers. Digital in from a very good transport will always sound better than digital in from a cheap player.

Alex

[spdif-usb]

High end DACS can certainly improve most sources, but they aren't miracle workers. Digital in from a very good transport will always sound better than digital in from a cheap player.

That depends on both how one defines "better" and the design of the DAC unit, as well as which type of digital input you're talking and the rest of the audio chain plus room characteristics.

[Jud]

Jud

 

High end DACS can certainly improve most sources, but they aren't miracle workers. Digital in from a very good transport will always sound better than digital in from a cheap player.

Alex

 

Lots of disc transports are far more expensive than better-sounding digital "transports." So there is something to what Dennis is saying about the modern era of digital making better performance possible at lower cost. Whether an excellent DAC can eliminate most or all differences between sources is a subject on which I frankly need more data, but to the extent a DAC can eliminate source differences in power supply "grunge," EFI, and jitter, it seems to me there's at least a possibility.

 

Regarding frequency response correction: I do take Dennis's point that between room, speaker, cable, and amp interactions, accurate frequency response may be a legitimate concern even with very good equipment. At the same time, I agree there is the potential for such correction to introduce its own distortions.

[sandyk]

Jud

I will reword my statement to reflect what I meant.

 

.

High end DACS can certainly improve most sources, but they aren't miracle workers.

Digital In from a very good CD player used as a Transport (i.e. Coax SPDIF Out) will always sound better than digital in from a cheap player.

Alex

[Paul R]

High end DACs have made silk purses out of sow's ears re jitter for decades - first with S/PDIF and PLL, then to an even greater extent with async USB. [/Quote]

 

Well, yes, but I suppose they have just been making a bad signal better. I think it is a GIGO type of thing, the better signal you start with, the better the output signal can be.

 

-Paul

[sandyk]

I think it is a GIGO type of thing, the better signal you start with, the better the output signal can be.

 

-Paul

 

Exactly !

[Audio_ELF]

At the end of the day I think the truth is somewhere in the middle of all these arguments...

 

Blind testing is best because it enables you to remove a large proportion of expectation bias, but it also introduces increased stress to "get the right answer" which means sighted is best.

 

Long term listening is best because it allows a relaxed assessment of the qualities of the system, but long term aural memory is poor so it's difficult to assess what the true differences are giving A/B testing the advantage.

 

Eloise

[Paul R]

That is a good summation. I agree totally with your conclusions, but disagree a bit with one of the reasons.

 

Long term aural/auditory memory capability is about the same as an individual's memory capability for abstract facts in most people. In other words, what gets into long term memory is dependent upon the impact it has on an individual, repetition, etc. Similar to memorizing the multiplication tables. Remembering the answer to 7x6 is usually more difficult for people than remembering 5x6, but both are effortless with sufficient repetition.

 

Same is true in audio, remembering the sound of that violin is a more difficult task than remembering the sound of your mother's voice, but it is possible with sufficient effort and time.

 

Same is true with short term memory. Tell a kid that 7x6=42 for the first time, wait 10 mins and tell him again, once, wait another 10 mins and the probability he or she will remember the answer is less than 60%. Ask him the next day, it is even lower. And a week later, unless he wrote it down and reviewed his notes, verry unlikely he will remember the answer at all.

 

Paul

 

Mmm... And autocorrect and spellcheck was turned off on this iPad. Whoo boy... Talk about short term memory failure!

 

 

At the end of the day I think the truth is somewhere in the middle of all these arguments...

 

Blind testing is best because it enables you to remove a large proportion of expectation bias, but it also introduces increased stress to "get the right answer" which means sighted is best.

 

Long term listening is best because it allows a relaxed assessment of the qualities of the system, but long term aural memory is poor so it's difficult to assess what the true differences are giving A/B testing the advantage.

 

Eloise

[Melvin]

At the end of the day I think the truth is somewhere in the middle of all these arguments...

 

Blind testing is best because it enables you to remove a large proportion of expectation bias, but it also introduces increased stress to "get the right answer" which means sighted is best.

 

Long term listening is best because it allows a relaxed assessment of the qualities of the system, but long term aural memory is poor so it's difficult to assess what the true differences are giving A/B testing the advantage.

 

Eloise

 

I agree it's a very good summation.

[bdiament]

Hi Paul,

 

That is a good summation. I agree totally with your conclusions, but disagree a bit with one of the reasons.

 

Long term aural/auditory memory capability is about the same as an individual's memory capability for abstract facts in most people. In other words, what gets into long term memory is dependent upon the impact it has on an individual, repetition, etc. Similar to memorizing the multiplication tables. Remembering the answer to 7x6 is usually more difficult for people than remembering 5x6, but both are effortless with sufficient repetition.

 

Same is true in audio, remembering the sound of that violin is a more difficult task than remembering the sound of your mother's voice, but it is possible with sufficient effort and time.

 

Same is true with short term memory. Tell a kid that 7x6=42 for the first time, wait 10 mins and tell him again, once, wait another 10 mins and the probability he or she will remember the answer is less than 60%. Ask him the next day, it is even lower. And a week later, unless he wrote it down and reviewed his notes, verry unlikely he will remember the answer at all.

 

Paul

 

Mmm... And autocorrect and spellcheck was turned off on this iPad. Whoo boy... Talk about short term memory failure!

 

I think these are key points. Aural memory is going to vary from person to person just as non-aural memory does.

 

I've seen it stated in some quarters that there is no such thing as aural memory. In my view, that one is easily dismissed by the fact that when my mother calls me on the phone, I don't have to ask who it is that is calling. Even if she has a cold or a sore throat, I can tell it is she on the other end of the line -- and I can tell she has a cold or a sore throat.

 

Some gear is so distinctive in its sound, *some* folks are able to identify it simply by listening to it. This is true for a lot of audio gear and it is certainly true for many musical instruments. I know lots of guitar players who need only one or two notes in order to differentiate between a Les Paul and an SG... and will be quicker still when it is a Les Paul or a Stratocaster.

 

In my experience, aural memory is real and in some folks, quite detailed and long-lived.

What I haven't experienced yet is someone who can remember a *color* - say to match paint at the store, without holding two samples next to each other.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[Encore]

Blind testing is best because it enables you to remove a large proportion of expectation bias, but it also introduces increased stress to "get the right answer" which means sighted is best.

 

Long term listening is best because it allows a relaxed assessment of the qualities of the system, but long term aural memory is poor so it's difficult to assess what the true differences are giving A/B testing the advantage.

 

Eloise

 

Well, there's blind testing and there's blind testing. Just because it's blind testing doesn't mean that it has to be short term. What I'm advocating for is blind longterm testing.

 

Short term testing is inherently problematic because you can't erase your aural memory between trials. And when you know what to listen for, sure enough, then you can also pick it up when you switch back to the lesser of two components. (OT: Interestingly, a technical parallel to this is utilized in e.g. the ATOC experiment. I've heard Walter Munk lecture on this, and a key component of it was that if you know what you're listening for, you can much easier detect it against background noise).

 

But that in itself doesn't explain at least my experiences, where an improvement only becomes detectable after a day or so. Could it be that an aspect of training is at play? I do believe that training plays a role in hifi--an audiophile trains his/her ears to pick up the cues that gives the sound stage and sense of depth. Training surely could be one reason why better sound-staging capabilities aren't appreciated until after a day or two. But it's less obvious in the case of "details never noticed before" ...