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

[Jud]

10 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Reality is full of traps for believers, because they are blissfully unaware of so many technical issues when they carry on their "hearing" sessions (aka "tests, listening, etc").

For example, take a speaker with highly erratic polar response:

 

(keep in mind the off axes curves are normalized to the (averaged curve above) on, so they are not as smooth as shown near zero axis).

What this means is that even the slightest head movement can result in a change is sound reaching the ears, in rather critical bands.

Unless a head vice is used, getting up even when listening to same amp, could sound different. Good luck getting up and actually inserting another!

 

 

Since listeners would presumably not have their heads in vices, would this change of sound with slight change of position not be audible?  And if inaudible, why problematic?

[mansr]

12 minutes ago, Jud said:

Since listeners would presumably not have their heads in vices,

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

 

I always find this obsession with the "sweet spot" hilarious - if the system doesn't sound right in a general sense everywhere - what's the bloody point?!

 

Our hearing systems can deal with grotesque variations of FR with tremendous ease - but that only works if the distortions are low enough so that altering the FR doesn't then spotlight those distortions ...

[mmerrill99]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

Maybe a more codified test of noisefloor modulation would be worth looking at though with solid state gear of quality I think it would turn out to be a waste of time.

Why would you think/assume this -THD+N varies between amplifiers, particularly at low amplitudes

[Sal1950]

2 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Yes but I've grown out of that kind of thing.  Besides, inserting any new component into my listening system and attending to it over a period, usually of 30-90 days, quickly becomes really annoying if it's a dog.

My thought on that would be to show a somewhat higher level of integrity. 

Such as manufacturer X buys 4 pages of full color ads each month but when we measured his XYZ product it revealed very poor numbers and contrary to claims, it's insertion into 6 different systems revealed no change in SQ when listened to under bias controlled blind listening conditions.

NOT RECOMMENDED.

 

It's not about taking pleasure in trashing someone, but showing everything is not without warts in the real world.

Being much more of a consumer advocate than has been shown to me in a long long time.

[Sal1950]

6 hours ago, rando said:

Given the low chance of disrupting this thread with on topic matters, could you expand ever so slightly on the content one might have discovered in "outlaw" print?  Again, the mind wanders and I would like to center it.  

I'm not exactly sure I understand your question but I'll start here.

"Outlaw" along with "Underground" etc,  were terms used to describe audio print media back in the day that, in the main, started out free of advertising and supposedly were more free to review components without outside pressures.

On the list of  "MainStream"     were Audio, Stereo Review, High Fidelity --------

The Outlaws were Stereophile, TAS, Audio Critic, IAR,  --------------

Of the Outlaws, as here, there came a bit of a split between them. Some took a mainly subjective slant, others a objective one. Little is left in the Hi Fi print media of the objective approach, the most glaring exception being John Atkinsons measurement tags on some reviews at Stereophile.

What "one might have discovered in "outlaw" print" is exactly what you find in this thread. Divisive approaches to putting together a Hi Fi.  LOL

 

 

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, Sal1950 said:

My thought on that would be to show a somewhat higher level of integrity. 

Such as manufacturer X buys 4 pages of full color ads each month but when we measured his XYZ product it revealed very poor numbers and contrary to claims, it's insertion into 6 different systems revealed no change in SQ when listened to under bias controlled blind listening conditions.

NOT RECOMMENDED.

Frankly, in general, I have no idea who advertises or who doesn't.  I don't read the ads.

[jabbr]

7 hours ago, esldude said:

The J2 and M2 mentioned probably sound different.  Both have fairly high output impedance.  One has more power and output current capability vs the other.  One has feedback vs none. 

 

Despite all the talk, no one has approached the question about how one would actually predict accuracy based on measurements ... I don't mean "you could do this ... handwave" ... I mean the actual distinctions that a person can make within minutes by listening.

 

I didn't mean to drag Stereophile into this, aside from the fact that the measurements given tell us nothing that would actually answer the question.

 

AFAIK, the actual amp designers use a combination of researching parts specs, modeling, building & measuring as well as listening. No one has given me an iota of convincing reason why I shouldn't similarly do research including read reviews and lookup measurements, and then actually listen before purchasing.

 

Without getting into a bunch of prose, I consider the "J2" more accurate and this was apparent after listening for a few minutes and this has been borne out over time. I felt no inclination to do measurements to prove this to myself. Now if I were building one or the other and the sound wasn't identical to the real thing then yes I would do measurements.

[AudioDoctor]

Have you seen some of the shit posted here?  It's so ridiculous it deserves contempt and ridicule.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

Despite all the talk, no one has approached the question about how one would actually predict accuracy based on measurements ... I don't mean "you could do this ... handwave" ... I mean the actual distinctions that a person can make within minutes by listening.

 

I didn't mean to drag Stereophile into this, aside from the fact that the measurements given tell us nothing that would actually answer the question.

 

AFAIK, the actual amp designers use a combination of researching parts specs, modeling, building & measuring as well as listening. No one has given me an iota of convincing reason why I shouldn't similarly do research including read reviews and lookup measurements, and then actually listen before purchasing.

 

Without getting into a bunch of prose, I consider the "J2" more accurate and this was apparent after listening for a few minutes and this has been borne out over time. I felt no inclination to do measurements to prove this to myself. Now if I were building one or the other and the sound wasn't identical to the real thing then yes I would do measurements.

You asked what to measure between the J2 and M2 to find the most accurate.  You said you wanted the most accuracy.

 

The measurements connected to your speaker will tell you which is most accurate.  Depending upon the results we might be able to predict how the sound would differ to you.

 

Now your sighted listening consideration is not accurate in the way the measurements are.  It is the old idea beaten to death that you can listen and know accuracy when you hear it.  You and all humans are pretty lousy at simply listening and knowing accuracy.  I wouldn't consider your evaluation of accuracy worth much at all in terms of accuracy.  In terms of your preference related to what you think accuracy should sound like sure.  Two different things. 

[Sal1950]

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

Without getting into a bunch of prose, I consider the "J2" more accurate and this was apparent after listening for a few minutes and this has been borne out over time. I felt no inclination to do measurements to prove this to myself.

 

Hogwash, you have no idea which is more accurate, your just making a big fat guess. LOL

[Ralf11]

I wonder if we can design an AI system to monitor the output and tell us if it is accurate...

[firedog]

Unfortunately, often in the real world we have to make component choices under much less than ideal conditions:

 

Here's just a part of some advice from the B&O site on how to choose speakers: 

 

 

Quote

 

This one is a no-brainer for people who do “real” listening tests for scientific research – but it still seems to be a mystery to people who review audio gear for a living. If you want to make a fair comparison between two pieces of audio gear, you cannot, under any circumstances, know what it is that you’re comparing.

 

There was a perfect proof of this done by Kristina Busenitz at an Audio Engineering Society convention one year. Throughout the convention, participants were invited to do a listening test on two comparable automotive audio systems. Both were installed in identical cars, parked side-by-side. The two cars were aligned to have identical reproduction levels and you listened to exactly the same materials to answer exactly the same judgements about the systems. You had to sit in the same seat (i.e. Front Passenger side) for both tests, and you had to do the two evaluations back to back. One car had a branded system in it, the other was unbranded – made obvious by the posters hanging on the wall next to one of the cars. The cars were evaluated by lots of people over the 3 or 4 days of the convention. At the end, the results were processed and it was easily proven that the branded system was judged by a vast majority of the participants to be better than the unbranded system.

 

There was just one catch – every couple of hours, the staff running the test would swap the posters to the opposite wall. The two cars were actually identical. The only difference was the posters that hung outside them.

So, the vast majority of professional audio engineers agreed, in a completely “fair” test, that the car with the posters (which was the opposite car every couple of hours) sounded better than the one that didn’t.

 

Of course, what Kristina proved was that your eyes have a bigger effect on your opinion than your ears. If you see more expensive loudspeakers, they’ll probably sound better. This is why, when we’re running listening tests internally at Bang & Olufsen, we hide the loudspeakers behind an acoustically transparent, but visually opaque curtain.

We can’t help but be influenced by our pre-formed opinions of products. We’ve even seen that a packing box for a (competitor’s) loudspeaker sitting outside the listening room will influence the results of a blind listening test on a loudspeaker that has nothing to do with the label on the box. (the box was a plant – just to see what would happen).

 

I don't disagree, but  I don't know if I've ever seen a commercial hi-fi setup where they have a curtain like the one described for blind auditioning speakers. It's very hard in real life to setup a true blind comparison. 

 

But B&O do give other practical advice like use music you are familiar with, make sure volume levels are the same for the 2 components, etc. 

[ShawnC]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

 

I don't disagree, but  I don't know if I've ever seen a commercial hi-fi setup where they have a curtain like the one described for blind auditioning speakers. It's very hard in real life to setup a true blind comparison. 

It wasn't a blind test per se, but Magnepan a few years ago at a trade show did this to debut there new speaker.  I think it was there .7, I could be wrong it may have been the i series that was added to there main line.

[semente]

16 hours ago, mansr said:

It would be useful to readers if less than stellar results were published as well. Under the current model, which is apparently how all the publications operate, failure to find a review of a component one is considering could be down to any of three reasons:

1. It's new and nobody has had time to review it yet.
2. It's crap and nobody wants to upset the advertisers.
3. It has simply escaped the attention of reviewers.

If reviewers dared publish negative assessments more often, a lot of bad purchases, or at least wasted time, could potentially be avoided. Even buying exclusively from recommended lists isn't safe since often clearly inferior (as shown in measurements) products get glowing praise.

 

How about:

 

4. The manufacturer/distributor doesn't want to pay for advertising.

 

And your "the fact that an equipment is crap" doesn't stop some magazines from reviewing or worse raving about it:

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/zu-essence-loudspeaker-measurements

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/zu-audio-soul-supreme-loudspeaker-measurements

 

Which in turn brings us to what Arthur Salvatore calls the "new disease": AUDIO RELATIVISM

 

There has been a growing (and unspoken) "trend" in the audio magazine industry for more than a decade. In fact, I understand that one editor/reviewer (Jonathan Valin) finally stated and defended (a version of) this "theory" (or "belief") in a major magazine (TAS). Later on, another audio writer, Michael Laborgna, this time in Stereophile, made the same claim, in almost the same words.

 

This "belief system" is very convenient for its creators; the audio magazines and their 'reviewers'. It provides them with the ability (and the excuse) to find some "good", or some "justification" to purchase, within every single component that is reviewed by them. How? 

Because, if their belief is true, each and every component, under the right conditions, can equally satisfy listeners as much as any other component, for either the money or in the absolute sense. It's just a matter of time, or luck, before you find the right "match".

In effect: this theory means that all component performance is "relative" and with no "absolutes"; only "possibilities" exist.

 

http://www.high-endaudio.com/philos.html#Rel

 

Perhaps he's not such a fool after all...

[semente]

9 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

This might be true, but only if you sit 1m away from the speakers, which is where the speaker sensitivity is measured. At 4m from the speaker (my listening position) the actual amplifier output level will need to be around 0.02 watts to achieve 60dB SPL with 90dB/1W/1m speakers. Hardly 1 millionth of one watt as claimed, and certainly something that can be easily measured.

 

 

Salvatore's speakers are spec'ed as 94dB/W/m but we all know that low powered SET amplifiers should be used band-passed with high sensitivity >100dB horns.

 

So perhaps @esldude math is not too far off.

[semente]

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I always find this obsession with the "sweet spot" hilarious - if the system doesn't sound right in a general sense everywhere - what's the bloody point?!

 

Our hearing systems can deal with grotesque variations of FR with tremendous ease - but that only works if the distortions are low enough so that altering the FR doesn't then spotlight those distortions ...

 

If you are looking for a wide sweet spot the answer is:

 

[semente]

9 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Since listeners would presumably not have their heads in vices, would this change of sound with slight change of position not be audible?  And if inaudible, why problematic?

 

With many speakers, a change in position of 3 or 4 inches should be at least as audible as a change in cables.

[pkane2001]

2 hours ago, semente said:

 

Salvatore's speakers are spec'ed as 94dB/W/m but we all know that low powered SET amplifiers should be used band-passed with high sensitivity >100dB horns.

 

So perhaps @esldude math is not too far off.

 

It wasn't @esidude that did the math wrong, it was the original article I quoted. And even if the speaker is 94dB sensitive (the author was explicit about 90dB/W/m), at 4m distance it still needs just about 0.006 watts to achieve 60dB. Still about three orders of magnitude higher than the claim made by the blog author of 1 millionth of a watt.

[Jud]

7 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

Have you seen some of the shit posted here?  It's so ridiculous it deserves contempt and ridicule.

 

And to be clear, the OP was not about folks who occasionally come through with a sarcastic bon mot, who occasionally tell other folks they've got the wrong idea, or who when they see something actually dangerous being contemplated step in and caution people about it (as I've seen Speedskater and John Swenson do, to name two members I recall).  Rather it was about folks who seem contemptuous, dyspeptic, or both regarding the entire hobby and/or a large number of those who pursue it.

 

[Jud]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

It wasn't @esidude that did the math wrong, it was the original article I quoted. And even if the speaker is 94dB sensitive (the author was explicit about 90dB/W/m), at 4m distance it still needs just about 0.006 watts to achieve 60dB. Still about three orders of magnitude higher than the claim made by the blog author of 1 millionth of a watt.

 

Further to my general admonition not to take the original author overly seriously, I think he wanted to get to a Really, Really Amazingly Small Number by whatever means necessary, in order to induce the reaction "Surely no one could ever have considered measuring that!  Aha!"  So while a quick look at the math, as you've done, is probably a good thing to keep people from getting too hung up on the specific Really, Really Amazingly Small Number that was named in the article, I'm not sure it's worth a whole lot of discussion.

[Jud]

6 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

 

Hogwash, you have no idea which is more accurate, your just making a big fat guess. LOL

 

I often see this on science blogs about evolution, for example.  (Other science blogs as well, but I've seen it most often regarding evolution.)  Someone with much lesser expertise won't understand at least some of what a person with greater expertise bases a statement on, therefore thinks it is merely an opinion like his own, and hence discounts and derides it.  So in this case a member who designs and builds audio circuits (check out his stuff at DIYAudio, folks ) and performs measurements of those circuits as a matter of course is ridiculed as "just making a big fat guess" by someone I would conjecture does none of that.

 

Now who knows, maybe in this case jabbr is just making a "big fat guess."  But my assumption would be to the contrary: That he understands what the circuitry in the two amps is doing, and since listening didn't show anything obviously wrong, he felt no need to perform measurements to determine the circuits were operating as designed.

[Jud]

11 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

It's not about taking pleasure in trashing someone, but showing everything is not without warts in the real world.

Being much more of a consumer advocate than has been shown to me in a long long time.

 

For me it isn't even so much about being a consumer advocate (though of course the consumers are the vast majority of readers - still, "car mags" or "home theater mags" don't often do consumer advocacy either), but about the content not being boringly uniform, issue after issue.  The reviews are highlighted content - they're usually the cover stories.  But there is no sense of anticipation seeing a review of a piece of equipment touted on the cover if you pretty well know what you'll find inside: "I liked it."

 

I don't know what the circulation figures say, but I personally stopped reading the reviews long ago and only glance occasionally at the mags, usually to see whether there's any music being reviewed that I'm not familiar with and looks interesting.  And sometimes the non-review articles have interesting content - one of them, by Michael Fremer the analog advocate of all people, got me into computer audio.  It's been a very, very long time since a friend said to me, "Have you seen the review of [X equipment] in [Y audio magazine]?"

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

Now who knows, maybe in this case jabbr is just making a "big fat guess."  But my assumption would be to the contrary: That he understands what the circuitry in the two amps is doing, and since listening didn't show anything obviously wrong, he felt no need to perform measurements to determine the circuits were operating as designed.

 

Thanks @Jud -- I often worry I am just making a bit fat guess though  

 

Seriously I am posting from my own personal experience. I'll give another example: based on @Miska's description, my analysis of the excellent design as well as his very careful and excellent measurements I built the DSC1 DAC ... expecting to hear auditory nirvana, now don't get me wrong its outstanding just missing some qualities best described by flowery prose  So I considered (because this is an open design): what can I do to make it "better" and by "better" perhaps more lifelike? So I've proposed some design changes ... well it turns out that in building a Ferrari we have some of the problems of a Ferrari ... when it works its terrific ... but temperamental in a way that makes it not yet ready for prime time ... in particular my use of cascoded RF JFETS in the I-V section (crazy bandwidth and crazy low distortion) means that there can be oscillations in certain circumstances -- not in my initial testing but on subsequent testing ...  oh dear it might actually depend on whether they come from HK or mainland China now that NXP sold the parts division that makes these ... this kind of really crazy sh*t ... speaking of measurements, here is where this issue is being discussed: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/group-buys/175044-my-version-g-1000-low-noise-measurement-amp-ikoflexer-25.html ... so anyways I don't (yet) know how to measure changes that I can hear between the souped up Ferrari and the regular DSC1 and until I can tame the I-V down so that its stable under known conditions, its not ready for distribution. So anyways in theory there's no difference between theory and practice...

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, jabbr said:

So anyways in theory there's no difference between theory and practice...

 

Blog of a guy working on computational complexity: https://lucatrevisan.wordpress.com/

 

See Simpsons quote at top.