Why is long term listening better for evaluating components?

[Julf]

"Assume" "more accurate"? I didn't take you for the type to assume things.

 

Note I prefixed it with "most of us"

 

One can't "address their statements on a factual basis, addressing the validity of content of the statement" when an agenda exists. Look through the very well argued prior points and then the replies that followed. Again, if you don't see the bias and need to preserve the agenda...

 

While I agree some people here (but probably representing both sides of any binary argument) might have an agenda, I would like to think that that does not change the validity (or not) of their arguments, and they can still be addressed on a factual basis, instead of name calling.

[Julf]

Finally I stopped measuring and started listening, and I realized that the capacitor did have a fundamental flaw. This is were the ear has it all over test equipment. The test equipment is almost always brought on line to actually measure problems the ear hears. So we’re always working in reverse. If we do hear something and we can’t measure it then we try to find ways to measure what we hear.

 

This is one I can agree with. The challenge is nailing down what we hear in a way that is defined in a clear enough manner and is repeatable enough that we can construct ways to measure it. And it definitely doesn't imply measurements don't matter.

[Jud]

esldude,

 

In addition to Bob Stuart's comments on subjectivity here are a few others that you might want to try and dispute. Or, you could just say they're wrong and you're right.

 

Daniel Weiss: "Trust your ears".

 

Wlliam Z. Johnson interview:

Johnson: Yeah. In fact, Bob, as an engineer and a technical person yourself, I'm sure you've become aware that the measurement techniques we use today really don't necessarily tell you about the sound quality. Obviously, if it measures badly, it isn't going to sound good. But the simple fact that it measures well doesn't assure that it will sound good.

We have to get past steady-state measurements and get into the realm of dynamic behavior—how does the circuitry perform under actual musical dynamics? So far we don't really have a good handle on how to measure and quantify that. It would be great if we could have some simple number system that would allow us to evaluate equipment sonically, but so far, that hasn't happened.

Harley: You once said that hi-fi is one of the few industries where products are measured one way and used in another way.

Johnson: I have said that on more than one occasion. Every measurement that we're aware of falls into the realm of what we call repetitive, or static, measurement. In the real world, the simplest musical signal has component signals 1/10000 the size of some of the other signals present, and at many, many frequencies at once. It simply defies the abilities of static circuitry measurement.

 

Nelson Pass:

Q: What about all the other amplifiers that measure better?

A: The ear is not a microphone, the brain is not a tape recorder, and measurements are limited in describing subjective quality. I like to have low distortion and so on, but these things take a back seat to what I experience when I listen. There are plenty of products which have great specs – I will not be offended if you buy those.

 

John Curl interview:

Finally I stopped measuring and started listening, and I realized that the capacitor did have a fundamental flaw. This is were the ear has it all over test equipment. The test equipment is almost always brought on line to actually measure problems the ear hears. So we’re always working in reverse. If we do hear something and we can’t measure it then we try to find ways to measure what we hear.

 

And I've seen portions of interviews with Pass and Weiss quoted in support of objective, measurement-based points, too. (Especially Pass re cables.)

 

Just to make things clear: I do think there is a fundamental role for subjectivity in this hobby, in three ways: (1) It's a hobby; enjoy it. (2) I don't think we know how to measure everything we hear yet. (3) I want to learn more, and the leading edge of research into how what we hear in high end digital audio relates to various measurements seems to be a place where there's a lot going on that's interesting to learn about. (Yeah, I could quote snippets of interviews or even forum comments from well respected audio engineers/designers in support, but that somehow feels inappropriate in this particular comment. ;-)

 

In other words, chg, I think I share your basic attitude. But dang, sometimes you make it hard to agree with you.

 

Just as Dennis likes to cite respected designers saying things that agree with the approach he's currently taking (he used to be more of a subjectivist, at least so I infer from his comments), so you, and I, and pretty much everyone else I know likes to do the same in support of their own diverse approaches. Vive la difference and the learning opportunity presented thereby, says I. Rather than questioning the motives of folks who cite valid references disagreeing with me, I'd much prefer to take the opportunity to read those references. Couldn't hurt. In fact, odds are I'll enjoy learning something new.

[chg]

Note I prefixed it with "most of us"

 

I missed that, but should remember to read very carefully before replying to your posts.

 

While I agree some people here (but probably representing both sides of any binary argument) might have an agenda, I would like to think that that does not change the validity (or not) of their arguments, and they can still be addressed on a factual basis, instead of name calling.

 

I would like to think that too, but of course it changes the validity of their arguments particularly when a bias of this nature exists. And, I wouldn't say that suggesting bias is name calling.

[chg]

And it definitely doesn't imply measurements don't matter.

 

I doubt you will find one member here, subjectivist or otherwise, that says that measurements don't matter.

[esldude]

So you're the one to determine which statements he meant and which ones he didn't? Ridiculous! How do you know the interview wasn't the more accurate representation of his position? Because you say so? Also, do you really think white papers are the place one would include subjective information?

 

It's so obvious to me what's happening here. You attack any hint of subjective evidence because it threatens your daily way of life (which is researching, measuring, testing, bickering on CA). So you continue on with your biased objective agenda and often times make silly, desperation counter arguments in order to maintain your routine. In my opinion, you're not interested in finding truth, or learning, it's more about preserving the routine. Some that support you here are fooled and don't see the incredible bias involved, but I do.

 

Funny, how a few times now, you end up making some comment upon me or my 'way of life'. Whether I lead a putrid existence merely waiting on CA to reply to chg and nothing else, or was the most interesting well rounded person in the world, in neither case would those facts make my statements and ideas true or false. But you seem to be unable to stick with that instead wishing to make personal attacks. So sad.

[esldude]

esldude,

 

In addition to Bob Stuart's comments on subjectivity here are a few others that you might want to try and dispute. Or, you could just say they're wrong and you're right.

 

Daniel Weiss: "Trust your ears".

 

Wlliam Z. Johnson interview:

Johnson: Yeah. In fact, Bob, as an engineer and a technical person yourself, I'm sure you've become aware that the measurement techniques we use today really don't necessarily tell you about the sound quality. Obviously, if it measures badly, it isn't going to sound good. But the simple fact that it measures well doesn't assure that it will sound good.

We have to get past steady-state measurements and get into the realm of dynamic behavior—how does the circuitry perform under actual musical dynamics? So far we don't really have a good handle on how to measure and quantify that. It would be great if we could have some simple number system that would allow us to evaluate equipment sonically, but so far, that hasn't happened.

Harley: You once said that hi-fi is one of the few industries where products are measured one way and used in another way.

Johnson: I have said that on more than one occasion. Every measurement that we're aware of falls into the realm of what we call repetitive, or static, measurement. In the real world, the simplest musical signal has component signals 1/10000 the size of some of the other signals present, and at many, many frequencies at once. It simply defies the abilities of static circuitry measurement.

 

Nelson Pass:

Q: What about all the other amplifiers that measure better?

A: The ear is not a microphone, the brain is not a tape recorder, and measurements are limited in describing subjective quality. I like to have low distortion and so on, but these things take a back seat to what I experience when I listen. There are plenty of products which have great specs – I will not be offended if you buy those.

 

John Curl interview:

Finally I stopped measuring and started listening, and I realized that the capacitor did have a fundamental flaw. This is were the ear has it all over test equipment. The test equipment is almost always brought on line to actually measure problems the ear hears. So we’re always working in reverse. If we do hear something and we can’t measure it then we try to find ways to measure what we hear.

 

The Weiss quote is from an interview where a mag writer practically stuffed the words into his mouth. Mr. Weiss had described how they measure and design objectively. He was asked don't they listen, with further prodding Weiss said they listen while also reiterating the listening isn't part of their design process. He then said people in the industry would alert them to any problems upon listening while implying they didn't find any problems with his designs. Then finally parroting a statement by the interviewer who asked don't you agree you can trust your ears Weiss said of course trust your ears, and later in the interview basically left one with the idea when he was done with good objective design your ears were going to be happy. I won't even bother looking for the numerous other places Mr. Weiss describes his objective design process as you have had them given to you before. Your quote of him is so out of context it verges on being libel.

 

I guess for Mr. Johnson I will do what you no doubt wished I would do. I will say he is wrong. He paints a picture of nothing other than static measurements being done. That hasn't been the case for a long time now. Certainly nothing preventing dynamic measurements. Further Mr. Johnson's early work was quite likely guided by his sighted subjective listening impressions. His early equipment was colored rather than accurate. Beautifully colored, but not true to source nevertheless. As long as you use colored reproduction and how happy you are with the coloration being a subjective preference you are going to think you are seeing chaos in measures vs sound. Because different people prefer different things. Further in his later more developed designs that became more complex and better performing in a measurement sense some of his early devotees felt he had veered toward a sound that was less good and more like quality solid state equipment. Then of course he offered solid state equipment himself along with various hybrids.

 

Don't have any issues with Nelson Pass' statement.

 

Don't know the context of Mr. Curl's statement. Certainly just in isolation it isn't true test equipment is almost always brought on line to measure problems the ears hear. See Daniel Weiss' design process for instance. I would think most designers that use lots of subjective listening along the way are switching back and forth between listening and measurements. Otherwise they can get awfully lost in the resulting design without some repeatable reference to work from. (Examples would be some single ended tube designs I have heard).

[Encore]

Seems like a thread is once again becoming an argument about subjectivity vs. objectivity, and once I entered the discussion, I was also already caught up in that :-(

 

To return to the opening question, even if you have components where you can spot a difference in a short-term DBT, perhaps there's even a measurable difference, isn't it rather uncontroversial to prefer long-term evaluation to establish which component is better in your system with the music you want to hear?

 

For instance, at one point I introduced a new component which gave better HF detail and a blacker background, and immediately after the introduction, it seemed to be an advantage. Prolonged listening, however, revealed that the sound was somehow fatiguing.

 

There really isn't any controversy in this, is there?

[esldude]

Seems like a thread is once again becoming an argument about subjectivity vs. objectivity, and once I entered the discussion, I was also already caught up in that :-(

 

To return to the opening question, even if you have components where you can spot a difference in a short-term DBT, perhaps there's even a measurable difference, isn't it rather uncontroversial to prefer long-term evaluation to establish which component is better in your system with the music you want to hear?

 

For instance, at one point I introduced a new component which gave better HF detail and a blacker background, and immediately after the introduction, it seemed to be an advantage. Prolonged listening, however, revealed that the sound was somehow fatiguing.

 

There really isn't any controversy in this, is there?

 

 

Nope, I find nothing wrong with what you describe here.

[chg]

Funny, how a few times now, you end up making some comment upon me or my 'way of life'. Whether I lead a putrid existence merely waiting on CA to reply to chg and nothing else, or was the most interesting well rounded person in the world, in neither case would those facts make my statements and ideas true or false. But you seem to be unable to stick with that instead wishing to make personal attacks. So sad.

 

Yes, "lead a putrid existence merely waiting on CA to reply to chg and nothing else" does make your statements and ideas false due to bias. You're protecting a way of life, your routine, sadly, apparently, that's all you have. The coyote/roadrunner analogy is a good one. Sadly, coyote has nothing in his life but chasing roadrunner. No roadrunner = no life. Subjectivity threatens objectivity in audio. No objectivity = no life. Must defend objectivity even if that means making ridiculous arguments, and saying every genius designer who ever lived is wrong.

[chg]

The Weiss quote is from an interview where a mag writer practically stuffed the words into his mouth. Mr. Weiss had described how they measure and design objectively. He was asked don't they listen, with further prodding Weiss said they listen while also reiterating the listening isn't part of their design process. He then said people in the industry would alert them to any problems upon listening while implying they didn't find any problems with his designs. Then finally parroting a statement by the interviewer who asked don't you agree you can trust your ears Weiss said of course trust your ears, and later in the interview basically left one with the idea when he was done with good objective design your ears were going to be happy. I won't even bother looking for the numerous other places Mr. Weiss describes his objective design process as you have had them given to you before. Your quote of him is so out of context it verges on being libel.

 

I guess for Mr. Johnson I will do what you no doubt wished I would do. I will say he is wrong. He paints a picture of nothing other than static measurements being done. That hasn't been the case for a long time now. Certainly nothing preventing dynamic measurements. Further Mr. Johnson's early work was quite likely guided by his sighted subjective listening impressions. His early equipment was colored rather than accurate. Beautifully colored, but not true to source nevertheless. As long as you use colored reproduction and how happy you are with the coloration being a subjective preference you are going to think you are seeing chaos in measures vs sound. Because different people prefer different things. Further in his later more developed designs that became more complex and better performing in a measurement sense some of his early devotees felt he had veered toward a sound that was less good and more like quality solid state equipment. Then of course he offered solid state equipment himself along with various hybrids.

 

Don't have any issues with Nelson Pass' statement.

 

Don't know the context of Mr. Curl's statement. Certainly just in isolation it isn't true test equipment is almost always brought on line to measure problems the ears hear. See Daniel Weiss' design process for instance. I would think most designers that use lots of subjective listening along the way are switching back and forth between listening and measurements. Otherwise they can get awfully lost in the resulting design without some repeatable reference to work from. (Examples would be some single ended tube designs I have heard).

 

Frankly, I'm surprised that you even had the nerve to respond, but it does show how low you're willing stoop to protect your way of life agenda. The few designer examples I gave above, I spent about 10 minutes finding those examples. I have no doubt that I could find similar subjective statements from every single well-known, respected designer in the industry, and no doubt you would, shamelessly, try and explain each and every one away by trying to tell everyone what these men really "meant", or that they didn't say such and such, or that they're wrong and you're right all to preserve your daily routine. Well, I prefer to follow minds of respected, industry leading designers who have contributed greatly to this hobby, and not some bored, agenda, biased individual at the other end of a computer keyboard who continually dumps on these respected men.

 

At least one good thing came out of this exchange: you've exposed yourself for what you really represent and hopefully others see now what a waste of time it really is discussing anything audio related with you.

 

Oh, and what you, incorrectly, call personal attacks, I call exposing bias.

[Julf]

Oh, and what you, incorrectly, call personal attacks, I call exposing bias.

 

Just keep digging...

[chg]

Just keep digging...

 

You can't be serious. If that's not the pot calling the kettle black. Unless you're just joking. I don't know.

[Julf]

You can't be serious.

 

Is that a fact or an opinion?

[chg]

Is that a fact or an opinion?

 

You can't be serious? If that's not the pot calling the kettle black. Unless you're just joking? I don't know.

 

Like I said earlier, got to be very careful responding to you.

[Julf]

You can't be serious?

 

To answer your question, yes I can, sometimes. But I guess that is my personal opinion, and I might be biased.

[Paul R]

To answer your question, yes I can, sometimes. But I guess that is my personal opinion, and I might be biased.

 

You have to guess?

[esldude]

Frankly, I'm surprised that you even had the nerve to respond, but it does show how low you're willing stoop to protect your way of life agenda. The few designer examples I gave above, I spent about 10 minutes finding those examples. I have no doubt that I could find similar subjective statements from every single well-known, respected designer in the industry, and no doubt you would, shamelessly, try and explain each and every one away by trying to tell everyone what these men really "meant", or that they didn't say such and such, or that they're wrong and you're right all to preserve your daily routine. Well, I prefer to follow minds of respected, industry leading designers who have contributed greatly to this hobby, and not some bored, agenda, biased individual at the other end of a computer keyboard who continually dumps on these respected men.

 

At least one good thing came out of this exchange: you've exposed yourself for what you really represent and hopefully others see now what a waste of time it really is discussing anything audio related with you.

 

Oh, and what you, incorrectly, call personal attacks, I call exposing bias.

 

You might find the sound bite method of debate having a few problems if you wish to actually learn the truth instead of look cute and witty for a moment. You might look at and consider these designers for more than 2.5 minutes (10 minutes divided by 4 designers or is that too objective for you?).

 

I have read, thought about, listened to and in 3 of the 4 cases owned equipment from those designers you bring up. If you spent ten minutes, then I have a bit more to go on in making a judgement about their ideas. You might call that bias, I would call it informed opinion.

 

Mr. Weiss would seem to be as close to a purely objective designer as you can find. The quote you used is the only one even hinting otherwise, and as I described it was practically stuffed into his mouth in the interview.

 

If you knew the history of his equipment and studied the change in his circuits over the years, you would find Mr. Johnson relying on objective measures more than your quote (which I think is from 20 years ago) would perhaps lead you to believe.

 

Nelson Pass has done tests and written articles debunking some things, been a quite playful designer with all sorts of circuits while listening and deciding what he likes. He most definitely has a considerable objective input into his work.

 

John Curl has authored articles about distortion in quite some detail. I am not talking about articles in some puff piece audio mag spouting opinion. They were rigorous articles investigating different types of distortion. He too picks his designs by what he thinks sounds best, but studying distortion and hearing is what informs which kind of transfer function he tries to achieve. He measured distortion of every component in picking it in some of his past designs. Measuring the distortion for component selection is hardly throwing in a part and listening then saying ooh! or ugh!

 

So if you really want the background on someone, doing a sound bite quote and coloring them black or white is a fairly immature methodology. If that is all it takes to satisfy you then that is your choice. I am not so impressed however. Knowing the background of someone can inform your opinions. As you try repeatedly to pigeon-hole me that way, you might understand me better if you looked a little deeper. I am sure I am not 100% right all the time, and I also am not 100% some robotic parody of your idea of an inhuman objectivist.

[Julf]

I also am not 100% some robotic parody of your idea of an inhuman objectivist.

 

No, that would be me...

[Paul R]

John Curl has authored articles about distortion in quite some detail. I am not talking about articles in some puff piece audio mag spouting opinion. They were rigorous articles investigating different types of distortion. He too picks his designs by what he thinks sounds best, but studying distortion and hearing is what informs which kind of transfer function he tries to achieve. He measured distortion of every component in picking it in some of his past designs. Measuring the distortion for component selection is hardly throwing in a part and listening then saying ooh! or ugh!

 

So rather than the nonsense being spouted about - why don't you post links to some of the articles you feel are so much better than "puff peices?" (Which by the way, I probably disagree with you on, since we are talking about these guys opinions.)

 

Are any of these papers peer reviewed, or are they white papers which were used to to promote something?

 

-Paul

[4est]

John Curl has authored articles about distortion in quite some detail. I am not talking about articles in some puff piece audio mag spouting opinion. They were rigorous articles investigating different types of distortion. He too picks his designs by what he thinks sounds best, but studying distortion and hearing is what informs which kind of transfer function he tries to achieve. He measured distortion of every component in picking it in some of his past designs. Measuring the distortion for component selection is hardly throwing in a part and listening then saying ooh! or ugh!

 

Maybe it is just me, but it still sort of sounds like he trusts his ears first, and then looks for the causes with measurements.

[esldude]

So rather than the nonsense being spouted about - why don't you post links to some of the articles you feel are so much better than "puff peices?" (Which by the way, I probably disagree with you on, since we are talking about these guys opinions.)

 

Are any of these papers peer reviewed, or are they white papers which were used to to promote something?

 

-Paul

 

Some of each actually. I think I have linked to them before though that might have been in other forums. Some are IEEE papers, some interviews, some in hobbiest DIY mags, some of almost all of them. Google John Curl distortion and you will get plenty to view. I seem to recall he was also involved in work published by Matti Otala and at other times Walt Jung on TIM. He has designed a number of high end designs of high repute over the years for various companies. So you might google Curl with those other names for additional information.

 

Here is just one: http://jockohomo.net/data/7470.pdf

 

His work has been cited by Daniel Weiss and Roger Lagadec investigating TIM testing using digital techniques AES E-Library » A New Approach to Transient Intermodulation (TIM) Distortion Measurements

 

John Curl's Amplifier Design Philosophies A Parasound page with his ideas in a few points on design.

 

There is lots more if you look for it a bit. One of his ideas beyond minimizing distortion and keeping distortion orders low was always seeking lowest possible noise. I had a Sota head amp he designed. It was elegant, dead quiet, unusual, reliable with excellent design and components. Ran off special batteries. I got it because the rechargeable batteries had finally worn out. Took a chance, and got lucky by running into some NOS batteries for it at a hamfest near the Huntsville Rocket center. The batteries were used by them for some purpose or another. Have had experience with a few other pieces he designed. Good stuff in every case. It might have been overbuilt, might have gone above and beyond, but it was objectively impeccable, and sounded it. He listened and designed rationally. He is one example of many that aren't that easily pigeon-holed.

[wdw]

No, that would be me...

 

Julf,

You forgot "propeller headed" robotic parody.....etc... ;-)

WDW

[esldude]

Maybe it is just me, but it still sort of sounds like he trusts his ears first, and then looks for the causes with measurements.

 

Your over-simplifying I think.

 

He definitely listens, but he also designs rationally. It isn't so clearly an either/or. He does both. Sometimes his measurements pointed up things he hadn't heard. Other times he went searching for things he heard and hadn't measured.

[Paul R]

Are these the ones in particular you are referring to with your previous comment? I don't mean to sound pedantic, but I don't honestly have the time to practice google-fu right now with the number of hits that will come back, and would appreciate the very articles themselves that you used to form your opinions.

 

In return, I will make time to read them if I have not already read them.

 

-Paul

 

 

Some of each actually. I think I have linked to them before though that might have been in other forums. Some are IEEE papers, some interviews, some in hobbiest DIY mags, some of almost all of them. Google John Curl distortion and you will get plenty to view. I seem to recall he was also involved in work published by Matti Otala and at other times Walt Jung on TIM. He has designed a number of high end designs of high repute over the years for various companies. So you might google Curl with those other names for additional information.

 

Here is just one: http://jockohomo.net/data/7470.pdf

 

His work has been cited by Daniel Weiss and Roger Lagadec investigating TIM testing using digital techniques AES E-Library » A New Approach to Transient Intermodulation (TIM) Distortion Measurements

 

John Curl's Amplifier Design Philosophies A Parasound page with his ideas in a few points on design.

 

There is lots more if you look for it a bit. One of his ideas beyond minimizing distortion and keeping distortion orders low was always seeking lowest possible noise. I had a Sota head amp he designed. It was elegant, dead quiet, unusual, reliable with excellent design and components. Ran off special batteries. I got it because the rechargeable batteries had finally worn out. Took a chance, and got lucky by running into some NOS batteries for it at a hamfest near the Huntsville Rocket center. The batteries were used by them for some purpose or another. Have had experience with a few other pieces he designed. Good stuff in every case. It might have been overbuilt, might have gone above and beyond, but it was objectively impeccable, and sounded it. He listened and designed rationally. He is one example of many that aren't that easily pigeon-holed.