Why Do People Come To Computer Audiophile To Display Their Contempt For Audiophiles?

[semente]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

 

For some measurements, anyway.

 

All but cabinet resonance?

Most Wilsons are large, which allows them to play loud and extend the bottom quite low, and some are not very difficult to drive.

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/wilson-audio-sophia-series-3-loudspeaker-measurements

 

What else have they got going for them?

The press...and the price.

[Ralf11]

19 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

The very interesting one to me, is that high quality reproduction can cause the mechanism producing the sound to become "invisible" - that is, it becomes impossible to locate the source just using one's ears. In a completely conventional playback setup this translates to the listener not being able to "hear the drivers", no matter how hard he tries to do so - a quite facinating behaviour.

 

In normal audio this happens extremely rarely, so almost never talked about - some people may not be able to register this "illusion" for various reasons.

 

just posted a wiki with some studies in it on another thread a few minutes ago

 

beyond that, a Google Scholar search or a search in scientific databases (done at your local university library) will produce almost everything published, or presented at most meetings

[Ralf11]

you can now buy speakers with cabinets made of Al, to reduce or eliminate resonances

 

re pattern processing & matching

 

whatever is occurring in several minutes of A/B MAY NOT have to do with your brain learning to do pattern matching in that amount of time, as some pattern matching is innate, BUT it can also be a learned behavior, AND learning can affect and alter innate pattern matching

 

also, pattern matching is one way to do pattern processing, but not the only way

 

finally, there are different mechanisms of pattern matching

 

I know the above is true because my perceptron told me so

[fas42]

11 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Hi Teresa -

 

This is not actually the case.  Pattern matching can be inborn, as various experiments regarding the way we hear have shown.  If it is not an inborn pattern, then laying down that auditory pattern to the point where your brain automatically matches it isn’t a quick process.  Experiments have been done showing a week of training just in perceiving a single type of sound is inadequate.

 

So whatever is occurring in several minutes of A/B doesn’t have to do with your brain learning to do pattern matching in that amount of time.

 

I get exactly what Teresa is saying - whatever phrase you wish to use for the process, the essence is that the brain "fills the gaps" - it quickly groks that A and B are really just slight variations of the same thing, so 'decides' there is really just one thing, an AB object - and then recognises that AB object every time it hears A, or B.

 

The same happens when you hear a familiar tune on a crappy radio - your mind "prettifies" what your ear actually registers, and you can sing along with gusto. Put on some unknown, quirky piece on that same radio and you will probably quickly change the station ...

[Sal1950]

7 hours ago, jabbr said:

The issue is that nothing is 100% accurate in the sense that each two replays or reproductions of a piece will be slightly different. At the most basic level the background noise level will be random, so not the same from play to play.

Total mis-direction from the points being discussed, that being the most reliable tools to use in judging accuracy.  The bottom line still being that sighted human opinions and judgement is next to useless unless they can be substantiated with either measurement, or under blind bias controlled conditions.

 

7 hours ago, jabbr said:

yeah in the end what you conclude is all that counts.

Only for your preferences.

Again having no place in the pursuit of the State Of The Art in High Fidelity Reproduction.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

just posted a wiki with some studies in it on another thread a few minutes ago

 

beyond that, a Google Scholar search or a search in scientific databases (done at your local university library) will produce almost everything published, or presented at most meetings

 

Which one?

 

I'm curious whether there is anything out there; so far I haven't found it in "scholarly" writings - most audio people reject what I say as imagined nonsense, so finding something "real" would be good.

[Albrecht]

3 hours ago, semente said:

 

All but cabinet resonance?

Most Wilsons are large, which allows them to play loud and extend the bottom quite low, and some are not very difficult to drive.

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/wilson-audio-sophia-series-3-loudspeaker-measurements

 

What else have they got going for them?

The press...and the price.

Just using the Sophia as an example of a speaker that many are fond of and measures well & has a unique cabinet design that is more damped than others. According to Wilson, they recommend placing the speakers far apart with a really significant toe-in. But I've found that they sound "better" driven by high current amps, and set up in a more "normal" configuration where they are closer together with less toe in. I have thought they also sound better in a very live room.

I didn't mention a particular Dynaudio model number in my post.

 

My point was that the final sound of a particular system is contingent on a much more complicated experience and that the speaker's measurements done by Stereophile, or in a particular situation often do not reflect real world listening experiences at events, or what someone chooses as their amplification, cables, source, & in their room.

 

And.............

Wilson Sophias and most speakers even approaching this level sound very different depending on the other components that they are matched with, - something no measurement will ever tell. You cannot look at a series of speaker measurements and determine what they sound like in a real world scenario. Most speaker designers at this level take measurements only after they love the sound, and the speaker sounds exactly like they want it to, with their fav amplification, source, cables, etc.

 

Cheers,

[mmerrill99]

12 hours ago, Jud said:

So whatever is occurring in several minutes of A/B doesn’t have to do with your brain learning to do pattern matching in that amount of time.

I think Teresa might be experiencing this aspect of auditory perception in A/B testing: "Change deafness" arising from inter-feature masking"?

 

The summary states (bold is mine) "Our results reveal a form of "change deafness," in that although changes in both the frequency pattern and the expected duration appear to be processed effectively by the auditory system-cortical signatures of both changes are evident in the MEG data-listeners often fail to detect changes in the frequency pattern when that change is closely followed by a change in duration. By systematically manipulating the properties of the changing features and measuring behavioral and MEG responses, we demonstrate that feature changes within the same auditory object, which occur close together in time, appear to compete for perceptual resources."

 

And further "informational/perceptual masking–when a new event is clearly resolved by the peripheral auditory system, but the presence of other objects in the scene is nevertheless sufficient to impair detection (Gutschalk et al., 2008;Elhilali et al., 2009). This latter case – impaired detection despite a positive signal-to-noise ratio – presumably reflects some limited capacity in information processing"

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

Total mis-direction from the points being discussed, that being the most reliable tools to use in judging accuracy.  The bottom line still being that sighted human opinions and judgement is next to useless unless they can be substantiated with either measurement, or under blind bias controlled conditions.

 

I guess I should just give up listening to music and just listen to you. So tell me, I have both a FirstWatt M2 and J2. I've listened to both extensively, never blinded. I've not taken measurements of either, although I do have the individual parts and schematics to build copies/versions of both. So tell me: which one is "more accurate"? based on what exact measurements? Because clearly I've been doing this all wrong. What measurements should I make to tell me what to listen to? (I want the most accuracy)

[Superdad]

1 hour ago, Sal1950 said:

The bottom line still being that sighted human opinions and judgement is next to useless unless they can be substantiated with either measurement, or under blind bias controlled conditions.

 

What about when the differences are obvious?

 

And then what about two people listening and one of them is a musician who can tell the difference between two brands of trumpets on the recording?  Is that person's judgment only valid if it can be "substantiated with either measurement, or under blind bias controlled conditions"?

 

As much as I dislike you Sal--for all the snide things you have said about me (here and elsewhere, your most recent calling me the "Top 10 Audio Snake Oil Salesperson Of The Year")--I ask this question in earnest, not just to you, but the group.

 

That is: Who decides where to draw the line with regards to what differences can be heard and what can not?  There are a bunch of active, very serious threads going on right now here at CA where a host of people are comparing a variety of interface chains--with products that run from better clocks or offer better signal integrity in various ways.  Take a look at the quite in-depth reporting going on here: https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-the-sms-200-and-microrendu/?do=findComment&comment=686596

There you see a group of rather sober people spending real money on a range of products that are not stones in a box.  A good part of what they are hearing is likely variations in jitter and leakage current loops between gear.  

 

Admittedly, some people would not be able to hear all the differences between the permutations they are experimenting with.  But none of the products they are playing with are snake oil, and just because those individuals are using their ears (instead of an arsenal of test equipment they neither have nor which has been proven to be effective at identifying and correlating what they readily hear), they can no more be dismissed than the trumpeter who identifies a trumpet or the birder who recognizes a call.

 

I'm sorry that not all of you can hear the sorts of things that are apparent to others.  But I can assure you that if you walk into a room at a show (or at a dealership or a friend's house) and hear great sound, the components in that system were designed and refined through a long process of measure and listen.  

 

 

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

I guess I should just give up listening to music and just listen to you. So tell me, I have both a FirstWatt M2 and J2. I've listened to both extensively, never blinded. I've not taken measurements of either, although I do have the individual parts and schematics to build copies/versions of both. So tell me: which one is "more accurate"? based on what exact measurements? Because clearly I've been doing this all wrong. What measurements should I make to tell me what to listen to? (I want the most accuracy)

Record both using a calibrated measurement microphone positioned near the speaker using a quality ADC. Use the same bits and sampling rate as the original. Take equivalent small portions of the two recorded files and compare them to the original. Adjust levels and phase so that the recordings match the original as closely as possible. Whichever one reproduces more of the frequencies and amplitudes correctly is the more accurate one.

 

[pkane2001]

50 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Record both using a calibrated measurement microphone positioned near the speaker using a quality ADC. Use the same bits and sampling rate as the original. Take equivalent small portions of the two recorded files and compare them to the original. Adjust levels and phase so that the recordings match the original as closely as possible. Whichever one reproduces more of the frequencies and amplitudes correctly is the more accurate one.

 

Better yet, record a third track from the preamp output, and use that to compare with the two microphone tracks instead of the original source material.

[esldude]

55 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Record both using a calibrated measurement microphone positioned near the speaker using a quality ADC. Use the same bits and sampling rate as the original. Take equivalent small portions of the two recorded files and compare them to the original. Adjust levels and phase so that the recordings match the original as closely as possible. Whichever one reproduces more of the frequencies and amplitudes correctly is the more accurate one.

 

Recording with a microphone is not going to cut it for comparing electronics unless differences are very large.  You could do it as a first step.  Having the ADC tap the speaker posts while each amp is in use should show you which is more accurate compared to the input signal. 

[Sal1950]

5 hours ago, Superdad said:

What about when the differences are obvious?

 

Let's not be silly about this, If the "differences are obvious",  they obviously will be easily identified under blinded conditions.

5 hours ago, Superdad said:

And then what about two people listening and one of them is a musician who can tell the difference between two brands of trumpets on the recording?  Is that person's judgment only valid if it can be "substantiated with either measurement, or under blind bias controlled conditions"?

Duh, common Alex,, stop with the circular BS. If he can easily identify them sighted, he can identify them blind.

If not there is a serious issue with his claims.

You remind me of the audiophool who claims his wife heard the difference in his system from the kitchen after installing some new cable risers. But of course that "HUGE" improvement will never be able to be substantiated, so we just have to take their word for it.

 

But you know all this, it's just another example of you ducking from your claims of  "obvious" audible improvements with your products, but your refusal to sit down with one or two of our members and put your ears with your mouth is under blinded conditions.  I would be perfectly willing to trust your ears if you would cover your eyes while listening.   

 

5 hours ago, Superdad said:

As much as I dislike you Sal

OH MY, you have cut my feelings to the quick.  But that's OK, cause I have a thick skin.

[Sal1950]

5 hours ago, jabbr said:

So tell me, I have both a FirstWatt M2 and J2. I've listened to both extensively, never blinded. I've not taken measurements of either, although I do have the individual parts and schematics to build copies/versions of both. So tell me: which one is "more accurate"? based on what exact measurements? Because clearly I've been doing this all wrong. What measurements should I make to tell me what to listen to? (I want the most accuracy)

Well if I were you I would submit the M2 to John Atkinson for measurement and comparison with his results from the J2. The J2 is already showing some potential problems but without detailed M2 numbers who can say.

But I thought you knew a bit about the technology, why do you have to ask me? 

 

"The output impedance was relatively high for a solid-state design, at 0.5 ohm from 20Hz to 20kHz. As a result, the response with our standard simulated loudspeaker varied by ±0.35dB (fig.1, gray trace)."
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/first-watt-j2-power-amplifier-measurements#QmWDdAB35Yr3QP9B.99

[semente]

9 hours ago, Albrecht said:

Just using the Sophia as an example of a speaker that many are fond of and measures well & has a unique cabinet design that is more damped than others. According to Wilson, they recommend placing the speakers far apart with a really significant toe-in. But I've found that they sound "better" driven by high current amps, and set up in a more "normal" configuration where they are closer together with less toe in. I have thought they also sound better in a very live room.

I didn't mention a particular Dynaudio model number in my post.

 

My point was that the final sound of a particular system is contingent on a much more complicated experience and that the speaker's measurements done by Stereophile, or in a particular situation often do not reflect real world listening experiences at events, or what someone chooses as their amplification, cables, source, & in their room.

 

And.............

Wilson Sophias and most speakers even approaching this level sound very different depending on the other components that they are matched with, - something no measurement will ever tell. You cannot look at a series of speaker measurements and determine what they sound like in a real world scenario. Most speaker designers at this level take measurements only after they love the sound, and the speaker sounds exactly like they want it to, with their fav amplification, source, cables, etc.

 

Cheers,

 

I've listened to quite a few Wilsons and my impressions correlated quite well with the measurements.

 

Speaker designers which "take measurements only after they love the sound, and the speaker sounds exactly like they want it to" generally don't take measurements at all and their speakers are not exactly accurate transducers (i. e.  Zu). Some are actually quite bad.

I think Wilson wants you to believe his designs are made by ear but it's probably just marketing. And the poor measurements are the result of his design choices, not his listening impressions. Yes, he went to Vienna and blah, blah, blah, he was struck by lightning and the Gods spoke and he had a vision... Really. 

[pkane2001]

7 hours ago, esldude said:

Recording with a microphone is not going to cut it for comparing electronics unless differences are very large.  You could do it as a first step.  Having the ADC tap the speaker posts while each amp is in use should show you which is more accurate compared to the input signal. 

 

True. My point was that it's easy to throw up your hands and to say that the differences cannot be measured. In reality, anyone can measure equipment with a little imagination and some inexpensive (and often, free) tools.

[Jud]

4 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

"The output impedance was relatively high for a solid-state design, at 0.5 ohm from 20Hz to 20kHz. As a result, the response with our standard simulated loudspeaker varied by ±0.35dB (fig.1, gray trace)."

 

.35dB with a simulated loudspeaker - say it ain't so!  Obviously trash and unlistenable, and no other measurements can redeem that.  So it's now plain that Nelson Pass doesn't know what he's doing.

[Jud]

7 hours ago, esldude said:

Recording with a microphone is not going to cut it for comparing electronics unless differences are very large.  You could do it as a first step.  Having the ADC tap the speaker posts while each amp is in use should show you which is more accurate compared to the input signal. 

 

Which measurements would you want for accuracy, and do you have studies or data on how these correlate with human perception of sound in general or yours (in your system) in particular?

[Jud]

8 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

Record both using a calibrated measurement microphone positioned near the speaker using a quality ADC. Use the same bits and sampling rate as the original. Take equivalent small portions of the two recorded files and compare them to the original. Adjust levels and phase so that the recordings match the original as closely as possible. Whichever one reproduces more of the frequencies and amplitudes correctly is the more accurate one.

 

 

When you say "amplitudes," are you including phase?

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Which measurements would you want for accuracy, and do you have studies or data on how these correlate with human perception of sound in general or yours (in your system) in particular?

The measurement I'm suggesting is the difference between input and output. The amp that produces an output that least deviates from the original signal will be the most accurate. This says nothing about the audibility of the differences.

 

You can also difference the two signals (subtract input from output) and play the resulting signal through your speakers if you want to hear audible differences.

[pkane2001]

14 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

When you say "amplitudes," are you including phase?

 

Yes, that's why I said:

8 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

Adjust levels and phase so that the recordings match the original as closely as possible. 

 

Oh, I see you are talking about comparing phases of the output/input signals. No, frequencies and amplitudes should be enough. If there is a fixed phase shift,  it will be adjusted out before comparing signals, and a variable phase shift will result in altered frequencies.

[Jud]

7 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

The measurement I'm suggesting is the difference between input and output.

 

Right - but the difference between which inputs and which outputs?

 

For example, let's talk about phase, and say you are comparing two different speakers, or sets of speakers.  Due to different crossovers, you may get both (sets of) speakers altering phase from input.  Is one alteration "more accurate" than the other?  Does one alteration sound more accurate to you than the other?

 

Or comparing DACs, which use different filters: Can you even hear time domain differences between the filters (e.g., ringing or its effects)?  Or if there are differences in the frequency domain, are both satisfactory in terms of intermodulation/harmonic distortion?  Are you particularly sensitive to certain types of distortion, and do you measure for differences in these?

[Jud]

9 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

Adjust levels and phase so that the recordings match the original as closely as possible.

 

By the way - As esldude has found in doing some of his difference measurements, timing may need to be adjusted between files to achieve the closest match (deepest “null” when reversing polarity of one file to get a difference signal).  How certain can you be that you aren’t washing out real phase differences when doing this?

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

 

Right - but the difference between which inputs and which outputs?

 

For example, let's talk about phase, and say you are comparing two different speakers, or sets of speakers.  Due to different crossovers, you may get both (sets of) speakers altering phase from input.  Is one alteration "more accurate" than the other?  Does one alteration sound more accurate to you than the other?

 

Or comparing DACs, which use different filters: Can you even hear time domain differences between the filters (e.g., ringing or its effects)?  Or if there are differences in the frequency domain, are both satisfactory in terms of intermodulation/harmonic distortion?  Are you particularly sensitive to certain types of distortion, and do you measure for differences in these?

 

Jud, you are changing the subject. My post was in response to @jabbr about measuring differences between two amps to determine which one is more accurate.

 

There is an objective, engineering way to determine these differences, and then there's the fuzzy, perception-based way. Determining mathematically the true difference between the input and the output of an amp and then finding the one that is closest to a 'straight wire with gain' is an objective way to measure differences. This does not vary from listener to listener, nor does it depend on someone's fuzzy definition of what's audible.