Powercords

[Tom Andry]

.....MDS, along the same lines, if a man is standing DEEP in the woods by himself, and voices his opinion LOUDLY, and a woman is not there to hear his opinion, is he STILL wrong?.....

Yes, yes he is.

 

[Tom Andry]

Does that mean there is no sonic difference between the two? Absolutely not.

It means that there is no audible difference between the two. Many cables, amps, etc. measure different, but it is not in the range of human hearing.

What I think you are saying is that not everyone can hear some audible differences...this is true. But when people who claim that they can hear those differences can't demonstrate it without knowing which amp or cable or power cord they are testing...they just THINK they can hear a difference. THAT is the point of the abx testing methodology.

 

[Bevan]

what i find genuinely interesting in the 'all amps sound the same debate" is that is is not only gullible consumers that are buying this, nor only dishonest marketing men selling it.

case in point is dynaudio, whose website i have just been browsing.

first, they say somewhere: "The impact a loudspeaker cable can have on sound quality may be dramatic".

since there they are supposedly knowlegable men of science making this claim(i mean they do know how to design a pretty decent speaker), and they dont make or sell cables themselves, i wonder, either, how they so easily buy into the 'myth', or what would motivate them to be blatently dishonest.

also on their website is the $190000 arbiter amp which they say they built for the purpose of having a reference amp for designing their speakers. this took years to build and was never intended or marketed for the consumer marketplace.

will anyone seriously claim they completely wasted their time and money and should have just used a nad 370 or something of suitable power?

i'm guessing replies to this post might state that even the dynaudio engineers, being human, are not immune to bias. but the fact is they they, and countless other designers and sound engineers, know about the bias and dbabx testing and yet still do insist on diferences between amps, and sometimes even cables. something just feels a bit incongruous to me about all of this. i'm genuinely intersted in the debate and dont feel the evidence of either side is such that i can cast my vote just yet.

cheers

b

 

[DaveOCP]

It means that there is no audible difference between the two. Many cables, amps, etc. measure different, but it is not in the range of human hearing.

What I think you are saying is that not everyone can hear some audible differences...this is true. But when people who claim that they can hear those differences can't demonstrate it without knowing which amp or cable or power cord they are testing...they just THINK they can hear a difference. THAT is the point of the abx testing methodology.

What I'm trying to say is that (IMO) differences in amps, cables, transports and the like are slim, maybe closer to the difference between an mp3 at 160kbps vs. 192kbps rather than 128kbps. In any db abx test you will not get 100% of the people saying that amp A sounds exactly the same as amp B. Even if you get 80% saying they are the same, does that mean the 20% are all fooling themselves because they assume that amp B MUST sound different than amp A and are therefore biased? Or, do they know something that the 80% do not?

 

[Tom Andry]

In any db abx test you will not get 100% of the people saying that amp A sounds exactly the same as amp B.

Absolutely true. I agree emphatically.

Even if you get 80% saying they are the same, does that mean the 20% are all fooling themselves because they assume that amp B MUST sound different than amp A and are therefore biased? Or, do they know something that the 80% do not?

Well, if you take those 20 people (assuming an N of 100) and they can reliably pick one amp over the other, then the abx test showed that there was a difference between the two - proving your position. Dave, the abx methodology is not to make differences between two things harder to detect, it is meant to reduce bias. Bias in testing methodology rears its ugly head in many, many ways and researchers spend their whole careers finding new and interesting ways that it screwed up their results.

If amp A and amp B truly sounded different, I honestly don't think that it would take a room full of "golden ears" to hear it. But, if the differences are very, very minute, it is possible that only a small portion of the population even has the ability to hear it. In that case I'm betting the results would read something like, "For the majority of the sample, the sonic difference between amp A and amp B was undistinguishable. Interestingly, a small group within our sample could detect a difference." Regardless, for virtually everyone on the planet amp A and amp B are the same. At that point, the focus of the research stops being whether the amps sound the same and starts looking at whether these people can hear those differences reliably. I guarantee that the results of the study would be no significant difference between the amps because not enough people could hear the difference.

Now, before someone discounts abx because it ignores positive results. Take that group of people that test them multiple times and chances are, they were just lucky in that first test.

 

[gene]

If amp A and amp B truly sounded different, I honestly don't think that it would take a room full of "golden ears" to hear it. But, if the differences are very, very minute, it is possible that only a small portion of the population even has the ability to hear it.

Actually Harman did extensive DBT tests in their rotating 4pi chamber and found that musicians are the best at discerning audible differences, followed by average people not musically inclined or passionate audio gurus. The worst people at discerning differences believe it or not were self proclaimed audiophiles and reviewers

 

[WmAx]

Actually Harman did extensive DBT tests in their rotating 4pi chamber and found that musicians are the best at discerning audible differences, followed by average people not musically inclined or passionate audio gurus. The worst people at discerning differences believe it or not were self proclaimed audiophiles and reviewers

Please reference the relevant research paper.

Thanks.

-Chris

 

[gene]

Please reference the relevant research paper.

I don't have that off the top of my head. This was from discussions with Patrick Hart, formerly employeed by Harman and by Dr. Toole himself.

 

[gene]

Wow, I got some of the facts mixed up. So much for hearing things in the grapevine and transmitting it down from a very boggled memory

I just emailed Dr. Toole.

In actuality, they did their DBT testing in controlled listening rooms, not 4pi rooms which make sense since 4pi would measure well but sound horrible.

In addition, it was actually musicians who were the worst at picking out differences. He claims many of them unfortunately suffer hearing loss. Their selected trained listeners were the best at discerning differences while experienced reviewers (though the sample size was small) were no better than average MP3-era college students at discerning sonic differences. The test was conducted with a panel of 280 listeners lead by Sean Olive.

If you want to see the full report, you can get a copy of it from AES 114th Convention March 22-25, 2003.

 

[WmAx]

Wow, I got some of the facts mixed up. So much for hearing things in the grapevine and transmitting it down from a very boggled memory

Thank you. I've read much of the research by these scientists, and the comment about musicians having exceptional ability was what prompted me to ask for the specific paper, since I have never seen such shown by their data in the past. As you pointed out, usually, musicians do have hearing impairments that make them as a consequence, of low value in listening tests.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

.....WmAx, this is laughable, EVERYBODY has experienced higher spl decibels on a regular basis their whole life....automobile traffic with horns, motorcycles, four-wheelers, guns, stereos, headphones, screaming women, etc.....I've been in bands and orchestras and on stages with monitor speakers in singing groups my whole life, and not once, do I remember any dynamite going off to cause strain on my hearing, nor were any trumpet bells laid against the side of my head as they blasted anything....I'm thankful for musical experience in different areas for somewhat of a discerning ear, and have stayed away from headphone usage intentionally.....

Yet, many musicians, whom play in the middle of an orchestra, or play amplified rock music, percussion, etc.; experience high SPL for long durations. Musicians are more likely to be exposed to durations of moderate to high SPL as compared to most other people. The key to loss is the duration of the SPL. Automobile horns and other every day sounds are not of any consequence since the duration is, at best, momentary. It's not voodoo. The musicians could prevent hearing loss if they used hearing protection, of course, but how many actually practice doing this on a regular basis? The same hearing loss will occur with anyone who exposes themselves to high SPLs for long durations without using effective hearing protection. You can find SPL exposure limit charts readily, with a Google search, if you so desire. Even a seemingly only moderate loud 90dB will cause hearing loss if the exposure is for long enough repeated durations. I don't understand your reference to headphone. Headphones do not cause hearing loss if used responsibly, no more than speakers will cause hearing loss if used responsibly. I value my hearing greatly and use hearing protection whenever I am exposed to a loud sound for more than a few seconds. I won't even use a vacume cleaner without hearing protection. The loud sounds that I hear are usually limited to those when I occasionally crank the stereo[very rare], or the brief transients/peaks in music that are momentary.

-Chris

 

[mtrycrafts]

what i find genuinely interesting in the 'all amps sound the same debate"

There is no such debate. It is a distortion of where the debate really is. Just as the ID proponents keep[telling everyone of the scientific debate in evolution. There is no such debate in science, just being distorted where the debate is.



first, they say somewhere: "The impact a loudspeaker cable can have on sound quality may be dramatic".

No immunity from BS there

since there they are supposedly knowledgeable men of science making this claim(i mean they do know how to design a pretty decent speaker), and they don't make or sell cables themselves, i wonder, either, how they so easily buy into the 'myth', or what would motivate them to be blatently dishonest.

Oh, it is the company marketeers who do this, not the engineers. I have been exposed to this from Klipsch engineers about their bi-wire terminals. A marketing ploy only, not engineering.





also on their website is the $190000 arbiter amp which they say they built for the purpose of having a reference amp for designing their speakers. this took years to build and was never intended or marketed for the consumer marketplace.

will anyone seriously claim they completely wasted their time and money and should have just used a nad 370 or something of suitable power?

Yes, me They wasted good money on it.

i'm guessing replies to this post might state that even the dynaudio engineers, being human, are not immune to bias.

Yes, they are not immune from anything but, I am sure it is mostly the marketing department's fingers are in the pie


but the fact is they they, and countless other designers and sound engineers, know about the bias and dbabx testing and yet still do insist on diferences between amps, and sometimes even cables. something just feels a bit incongruous to me about all of this. i'm genuinely intersted in the debate and dont feel the evidence of either side is such that i can cast my vote just yet.cheers
b

Countless do and many refuse for who know what reason. Why is there still a debate by some about evolution???

Perhaps hype sells more than facts After all, it is about making money, not publishing peer papers

 

[mtrycrafts]

Wow, I got some of the facts mixed up. So much for hearing things in the grapevine and transmitting it down from a very boggled memory

I just emailed Dr. Toole.

In actuality, they did their DBT testing in controlled listening rooms, not 4pi rooms which make sense since 4pi would measure well but sound horrible.

In addition, it was actually musicians who were the worst at picking out differences. He claims many of them unfortunately suffer hearing loss. Their selected trained listeners were the best at discerning differences while experienced reviewers (though the sample size was small) were no better than average MP3-era college students at discerning sonic differences. The test was conducted with a panel of 280 listeners lead by Sean Olive.

If you want to see the full report, you can get a copy of it from AES 114th Convention March 22-25, 2003.

What were they testing? Speakers or amps?

There is an earlier article on the same line, 'Grass is Greener in the Out takes'

Do you have a paper number?

 

[mtrycrafts]

. In any db abx test you will not get 100% of the people saying that amp A sounds exactly the same as amp B. Even if you get 80% saying they are the same, does that mean the 20% are all fooling themselves because they assume that amp B MUST sound different than amp A and are therefore biased? Or, do they know something that the 80% do not?

Not sure what you are driving at? I think you may be confusing issues here.

The results of a DBT test is statistically analyzed for significant differences.
If an individual can consistently detect audible differences, then there is one between those two components, no matter how many others do not.

 

[WmAx]

.....rock music, right-on....precussionists, specifically, cymbal players, not the case, as a cymbal crash doesn't happen that much, and would fall in line with your carhorn reference....do you have experience in public school bands or orchestras?....as I sat in different trombone sections, it just wasn't THAT loud....you're trying to say musicians in general have ruined their hearing, and I don't see how you're arriving at that broad assignment.....

Quite simply: if the person has been exposed to repeated long durations of moderate or high SPL levels, their hearing ability is diminished proportionately in relation to such expsoure. Referring to someone as a musician is also a detail that needs to be explained. Your cymbal player example: if it's just some person who, in part time, is exposed, then it's not that big of a deal. If, however, you are referring to a drum percusionist, who actually practices on a regular basis, then they will be at high risk for rapid hearing loss if they do not use very effective hearing protection. Also, some instruments just are not very loud in normal playing conditions, so regular practice may not have any detrimental effect, but other variables in association with playing the instrument can lead to hearing loss, such as regular practice or performance with an ensemble without using proper hearing protection. In the previous post I specified duration and SPL as critical factors that go hand-in-hand. So, in general, professional musicians[or hardcore ameteurs that essentially have the same playing habits as proffesionals], as a group, should tend to have greater hearing loss. The part-time hobbyist, of course, is not as likely to have such hearing losses.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

....WmAx, I can go with this in theory, but I really don't think musicians less than rock musicians, suffer any "appreciable" hearing loss beyond a natural attritional loss with age....people have been playing instruments and drums for how many years?....wouldn't things like that have been notably and varifiably established long ago?....I have been a musician all my life actually, and can hear a gnat fart from 50 yards, now what does that tell you, WmAx?....huh?....

Addressing exposure: DB level? Duration average of exposure? Frequency of exposure? Bandwidth average of noise? Total accumalated exposure?

It's not debatable that duration of regular exposure to moderate and high SPL will more rapidly diminish hearing. Therefor, I don't see what there is to discuss except the qualifying questions above. If you don't personally expose yourself to constant high SPL levels, then that is a good thing, but beside the point.

.....WmAx, let's dwell on what we HEAR, as we post at this site, not what we reason from other persons' opinions or articles....let's post about things we as an individual actually HEAR, so Mtrycrafts can post right back and tell us we DIDN'T HEAR ANY SUCH THING, haha.......

No way, 'Jose. To ignore the scientific data that is available to help arrive at conclusions, well, that is to dwell in ignorance.

-Chris

 

[mtrycrafts]

..

.....WmAx, let's dwell on what we HEAR, as we post at this site, not what we reason from other persons' opinions or articles....let's post about things we as an individual actually HEAR, so Mtrycrafts can post right back and tell us we DIDN'T HEAR ANY SUCH THING, haha.......

Well, you have not demonstrated what you can hear. You tell us what you have perceived, nothing more. And, they are not the same. As soon as you can demonstrate what you can really hear, then we can further discuss it.

 

[DaveOCP]

Something tells me this debate is not going to be solved anytime soon. The argument can be applied to almost anything. Do I think my $3K Ovation custom shop guitar sounds better than a $500 factory model from Korea? Yes. Could I prove it in a db test? Probably not. That fact does not bother me though, as the custom shop guitar has many other values that I feel justifies its price tag.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Could I prove it in a db test? Probably not. That fact does not bother me though, as the custom shop guitar has many other values that I feel justifies its price tag.

Ah, that is a different issue then, 'many other values.' Very legitimate reason to make a choice. No one said otherwise, unless someone tries to distort the truth.

 

[Tom Andry]

especially, when they had to read what someone else wrote, in order to have an opinion....that doesn't apply to my World thankfully, and never will....

Wow, just wow.

So research, in all its various and sundry forms is useless to you because you didn’t do it yourself? The accumulated knowledge of our species, as passed on through LITERATURE, all crap ‘cause you are not going to inform your opinions based on someone else’s writing? All those designers and engineers, who read books and papers and theories and then created your beloved amps and speakers…they should have started from scratch? Out there in a lightening storm with a kite and a key, before they could form the opinion that they were of the opinion that electricity even existed?

Interesting way to think. The only valid opinion is one that you have formed yourself. No ones, not even an expert in the field with oodles of experience far beyond anything you will ever know, opinion’s count in your world.

• Why do you fly? Engineers are of the opinion that the plane won’t fall out of the sky. How can you know that their opinion is worth a damn if you didn’t design, build, and pilot the plane yourself?
  
• Why do you take drugs (legal ones)? Doctors, pharmacists, and chemists are of the opinion that they will benefit you in some way. If you didn’t discover, refine, and test the drug yourself, how can you know that it will work? How can you know that it won’t kill you?
  
• Why do you post to the internet? Here you are trusting that there is actually this magical ethereal construct where millions if not billions of people are all interconnected. Since you are not Al Gore, I know you didn’t invent the Internet so how do you know it’s not a couple of college kids with nothing to do playing a prank on you?

The fact of the matter Mule is that, no matter how pig headed you want to be about it, we rely on other, more experienced, people to inform our opinion. Yes, our own opinions carry much more weight in our own minds but we still need others or we would be paralyzed. You ask your dentist which toothpaste to use. You try it. It tastes bad. You tell your dentist. They tell you that their recommended toothpaste works the best but offers you a couple of other options. So on. What if you had to test all the toothpastes yourself? What if you had to buy them all, use them for at least six months (time between check-ups) and compare the results? Then, every time a new toothpaste came to market, you’d have to test that one as well. What about toothbrushes? Potatoes? Frozen peas? Oil for your car? Hair brush? Khakis? Cologne? Beer (OK, this one might not be so bad)? You’d never be able to do anything because you’d be too busy coming up with your own opinions about everything.

But hey, its your world, I’m just glad I don’t have to live in it.