what camp are you in?

[mtrycrafts]

I've been reading stereophile for years now. A manufacturer will send a reviewer (let's say wes phillips) a piece of equipment for review. He will insert said equipment in his own system (with which he is very familiar) and live with it for weeks, sometimes months, at a time. During this time he will LISTEN and then document what he heard. How did it differ from his reference setup? Was it sweeter, edgier, more dynamic or a more laid back presentation? Did it widen the soundstage or add more depth? After wes has finished his review he will send the piece to john atkinson who will proceed to measure the unit. He is very precise and i trust his findings completely. But reading his charts and graphs and measurements is not where i begin to form an opinion on this unit. I want to read what wes thought. When he plays a cut from a cd (especially one i'm familiar with) and describes what he's hearing i can relate that to my system. Can i hear the same thing on my system? Do i NEED to hear that to be happy? I guess thats fodder for another thread! Granted, you need to become comfortable with a reviewer to gain a measure of trust. This is not done overnight. But in the end, if john adkinson's measurements declared this piece to be flawless and wes phillips said it sounded hard, bright and forward, i would take it off my want list! By the same token, if wes said it had a sweet top end, punchy bass and great depth, and the measurements said it to be flawed in some way, i would still give it a LISTEN.

Yes, yes, I am familiar with such reviews, full of flowers, adjectives, whatnots. But in the end, it is a very subjective and biased opinion that is in print. Flawed protocol would produce such unreliable outcomes. However, it is obvious that people buy it and that is their prerogative to do.

It would be nice if Wes would do this under DBT conditions that he could do over months if he so wished.

 

[Dan Banquer]

Amplifiers

"But have those others compared their designs with others under DBT conditions?

Did you read the cited paper?
Dr David Rich has for many decades and the paper is the byproduct of those and his understanding of the topologies and implementations in each as he addresses them all. Modern, well designed components are transparent, below threshold of detection.

And, the decades of published DBTs of amps showing no audible differences when driven withing their design limits supports his paper.

Perhaps you have specific papers to show where amps are audibly different and particularly due to topology, under DBT, level matched protocol???"

You have three mistaken conclusions. The first is that this stuff has been done in pro audio for years, and they have found differences, and the second is that consumer audio tests of this nature have been done WITHOUT training people on what to listen for first, and the third, and not talked about but still important is the fact that there are no standards for grounding in consumer audio. Most of the grounding issues in consumer audio lead to more noise than there should be, so you can connect a low noise amp to a "typically" grounded pre amp and CD player and get a null result. What a surprise.

Mytrcrafts: I have told you this before, and I am sick and tired of repeating myself. I have put up posts on grounding, that you have ignored or as I suspect you really don't understand. You quote this and that but it is clear from discussions in the past that you have little or no understanding of how a basic linear power supply works.
In short you are disseminating misleading information, based on yours and others ignorance.
BTW: I can easily take a linear amp design toplogy and easily give you two very different sounding amps.
Enough already;
d.b.
P.S. The High Instantaneous Current paper was a deliberate slap in the face to Dave Rich, and who promoted this test during his "stay" at The Audio Critic. If you have Dave's e mail address please either send the link to him or send me his e mail address. I want to make sure he reads it.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Mytrcrafts: I have told you this before, and I am sick and tired of repeating myself. I have put up posts on grounding, that you have ignored or as I suspect you really don't understand. You quote this and that but it is clear from discussions in the past that you have little or no understanding of how a basic linear power supply works.
In short you are disseminating misleading information, based on yours and others ignorance.
BTW: I can easily take a linear amp design toplogy and easily give you two very different sounding amps.
Enough already;
d.b.
P.S. The High Instantaneous Current paper was a deliberate slap in the face to Dave Rich, and who promoted this test during his "stay" at The Audio Critic. If you have Dave's e mail address please either send the link to him or send me his e mail address. I want to make sure he reads it.

You have not addressed my question. Has any of your people you offer up published anything, DBT comparisons, on amps sounding different???

Did you read that paper by David Rich??? You should before you dismiss him so fast. And, that High current paper did no such thing.

If you cannot offer evidence from level matched DBT comparisons, you have nothing to argue about. End of story.

Oh, please post the quoted section better as it runs together and hard to differentiate your comments from the quotes, thanks.

 

[Dan Banquer]

Amplifiers

And you gave the expected answer. You know nothing about electrical engineering and don't realize that the present system is broken.What makes your statements even more contemptible is that you don't even seem to care. The broad sweeping statements from the consumer DBT crowd don't want to acknowledge this, but real engineers do. Mind you I am not advocating the TAS or Stereophile approach. I am advocating an engineering agenda; which is something you and most others unfortunately will never understand and will continue to resort to philosophical/political debate. Thanks, in part, to pseudo experts such as yourself, consumer audio will not progress in many areas.
d.b.

 

[WmAx]

I don't understand why this argument started.

You have three mistaken conclusions. The first is that this stuff has been done in pro audio for years, and they have found differences,

I am not sure of what you are stating. Please clarify. Do you mean:

(A) Audible differences have been found in pro audio.

(B) Audible diferences have not been found in pro audio.

If (A) and you are referring to some relatively unknown parameter(s), please specify the relevant measured signal analysis parameter(s) and the supporting scientifically valid peer-reviewed listening test(s) and/or correlating perceptual research relevant to the measurable parameter(s).

and the second is that consumer audio tests of this nature have been done WITHOUT training people on what to listen for first,

These test vary wildly. You can not generalize them all into one group..

and the third, and not talked about but still important is the fact that there are no standards for grounding in consumer audio. Most of the grounding issues in consumer audio lead to more noise than there should be, so you can connect a low noise amp to a "typically" grounded pre amp and CD player and get a null result. What a surprise.

Noise does occur in some situations. It is commonly due to inferior grounding practices that create ground loops in a certain combination of connections in specific circumstances. How does this apply to anything that mtrycrafts has stated? I have not read all of the discussions between the two of you, but has mtrycrafts claimed that grounding-induced noise is never an issue?

BTW: I can easily take a linear amp design toplogy and easily give you two very different sounding amps.

And you would create a measurable difference in that amplifier that is within human thresholds for detection[and can be correlated to existing perceptual research]. But would this [sound-processor amp] still qualify as properly designed, as mtrycrafts is careful to state in his posts?

-Chris

 

[Dan Banquer]

Amplifiers

Chris: Consumer audio DBT testing has ignored the issues I have raised, and as far as I can tell mytrcrafts does not know what I am talking about. What is truly unfortunate is that engineers such as Bill Whitlock and Bruno Putzeys know what I am saying, becasue they are saying rather similar things about grounding practices in consumer audio and pro audio. The papers on this stuff were written years ago on these issues and have been ignored by "consumer" academia, and most consumer manufacturers. You can find them in texts by Ott, Morrison, Muncy, and Whitlock. Audibilty of noise with relatively efficent speakers, 90 db/spl and up is already well known, especialy in the typical living situation. This is nothing new, and I am tired of repeating it.
Have a good evening;
d.b.

 

[mtrycrafts]

And you gave the expected answer. You know nothing about electrical engineering and don't realize that the present system is broken.What makes your statements even more contemptible is that you don't even seem to care. The broad sweeping statements from the consumer DBT crowd don't want to acknowledge this, but real engineers do. Mind you I am not advocating the TAS or Stereophile approach. I am advocating an engineering agenda; which is something you and most others unfortunately will never understand and will continue to resort to philosophical/political debate. Thanks, in part, to pseudo experts such as yourself, consumer audio will not progress in many areas.
d.b.

Pseudo expert? How interesting, isn't it? I claim nothing unlike many others who do without any evidence as support.

On the other hand, you refuse to support your assertions about audible differences. Why? Nothing in print to show? Naming audio greats is not the cited answer. Perhaps you just don't like the answers or the evidence out there?
Good day.

Ps. If you are interested in discussing the David Rich paper, please contact him at Technical Director at T$$. I am sure he will be interested in explaining his paper to you, and what his expertise is.

 

[rollinrocker]

Gentlemen

Tonite i've cranked up the new "BROTHERS IN ARMS" dvd audio disc, some jack johnson and some blue man group "THE COMPLEX" while enjoying a couple of ice cold rollingrocks. Now thats what its all about!

 

[mtrycrafts]

Tonite i've cranked up the new "BROTHERS IN ARMS" dvd audio disc, some jack johnson and some blue man group "THE COMPLEX" while enjoying a couple of ice cold rollingrocks. Now thats what its all about!

Absolutely that is what it is about, enjoyment. I enjoy my two boom-boxes and my car radios or Cd player in one of them. Some just miss these points

 

[MDS]

Chris: Consumer audio DBT testing has ignored the issues I have raised, and as far as I can tell mytrcrafts does not know what I am talking about. What is truly unfortunate is that engineers such as Bill Whitlock and Bruno Putzeys know what I am saying, becasue they are saying rather similar things about grounding practices in consumer audio and pro audio.

Just because you can cite a few (or even dozens) of people that 'know' what you do, does not mean it is fact. Your attitude reminds me of another poster that claims to 'know' how to make the perfect cable and thinks everyone else in the industry is an idiot that can't get it right.

 

[WmAx]

Chris: Consumer audio DBT testing has ignored the issues I have raised,

You have not specified anything except for noise issues due to grounding problems in this thread, or at least that is all that I have noticed. Please explain how this is not addressed. Or do you mean to imply other factors are not accounted for? Please be specific.

What is truly unfortunate is that engineers such as Bill Whitlock and Bruno Putzeys know what I am saying, becasue they are saying rather similar things about grounding practices in consumer audio and pro audio. The papers on this stuff were written years ago on these issues and have been ignored by "consumer" academia, and most consumer manufacturers.

Yes, I am aware that consumer equipment does not have a standard established to prevent ground loop noises from becoming a problem in some select circumstances.

You can find them in texts by Ott, Morrison, Muncy, and Whitlock. Audibilty of noise with relatively efficent speakers, 90 db/spl and up is already well known, especialy in the typical living situation. This is nothing new, and I am tired of repeating it.

So, if your only issue is grounding noise problems, I don't understand why you replied to mtrycrafts in the manner that you did. I must have missed something...

-Chris

 

[Dan Banquer]

Hi Chris:
I see no further point in continuing this thread. No one appears to be interested in furthering the engineering as everyone appears to be convinced that amplifiers have achieved such a high level of perfection that no further work is necessary. No one appears to be interested in grounding or noise issues, and the June 1995 Journal of the AES which was dedicated to grounding issues in Pro Audio is just simply not worth mentioning. Nor is the application of those principles appear to be worth attaining for unbalanced consumer audio.
But there is one major problem with DBT's and audio; it is not accepted by the majority of consumers, who could really care less, nor is it fully accepted by the many recording engineers, and designers. Do you think there might be a reason for that?
I suppose you could just chalk it all up to ignorance, but that still wouldn't be convincing for many folks now would it? And why after all these years are so many people not impressed with audio DBT testing?
d.b.

 

[WmAx]

Hi Chris:
I see no further point in continuing this thread. No one appears to be interested in furthering the engineering as everyone appears to be convinced that amplifiers have achieved such a high level of perfection that no further work is necessary.

I am sorry, but you do not seem to be replying to anything that I have said. You are not making sense; it would appear that you are trying to make an argument out of an issue that has not been brought up or argued.

But there is one major problem with DBT's and audio; it is not accepted by the majority of consumers, who could really care less, nor is it fully accepted by the many recording engineers, and designers. Do you think there might be a reason for that?

I don't care to speculate at this time as to why some specific group of people may not care about DBT protocol(s). However, credible studies will adhere to it strictly. It is a standard(and only) method used in credible perceptual research labratories. It is the only accepted method according to scientific standards. Engineers are not scientists. Engineers do not determine the perceptually relevant parameters. This is the job of the scientists/researchers, such as Dr. Floyd Toole.

I suppose you could just chalk it all up to ignorance, but that still wouldn't be convincing for many folks now would it? And why after all these years are so many people not impressed with audio DBT testing?
d.b.

DBT is responsible for the high quality of many common items used by the general public. The advanced surround sound system standards, lossy encoder algorythms, soundfield simulation algorythms, digital audio format development(RBCD)/standards, loudspeaker optimization and development, etc.. Without DBT, you would have poor quality data that is not nearly as useful, thus not nearly as efficient for advancement. These technologies would be considerably inferior if a DBT was not used in the research. The public's realization (or not) of this does not change what it has done.

-Chris

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Absolutely that is what it is about, enjoyment. I enjoy my two boom-boxes and my car radios or Cd player in one of them. Some just miss these points

Make that Mtry and myself. Gotta luv the boombox!

 

[rollinrocker]

what??

When i started this thread i was trying to get a feel as to who basically listens to equipment or adheres to charts, graphs and measurements when making a buying decision. Hence the "what camp are you in?" headline. Now i'm really confused 54 posts later! Mtry and wmax appear to think properly designed and well-functioning units that measure alike will sound alike, yet adhere strongly to double blind testing which involves critically LISTENING. Dan on the other hand, seems to be a charts kinda guy, wants nothing to do with dbt, yet appears to agree with me that audible diffs can exist between said gear. NOW WHAT?

 

[shokhead]

You could always do it the old way,if it sounds good,it sounds good. I've never heard a chart or paper sound like much.

 

[PENG]

Engineers are not scientists. Engineers do not determine the perceptually relevant parameters. This is the job of the scientists/researchers, such as Dr. Floyd Toole.
[Chris

I cannot disagree with your general statement, but there are many engineers with, or without PHD in engineering, who are researchers. The line between the two group of professionals can be blurred so it is best to avoid such generic statement in this case IMHO.

With all due respect, Dan is just one of many engineers. He expressed his views, stated what he believed were facts, in threads such as this one. I am sure you know that does not mean it is always the views of other engineers.

 

[PENG]

When i started this thread i was trying to get a feel as to who basically listens to equipment or adheres to charts, graphs and measurements when making a buying decision. Hence the "what camp are you in?" headline. Now i'm really confused 54 posts later! Mtry and wmax appear to think properly designed and well-functioning units that measure alike will sound alike, yet adhere strongly to double blind testing which involves critically LISTENING. Dan on the other hand, seems to be a charts kinda guy, wants nothing to do with dbt, yet appears to agree with me that audible diffs can exist between said gear. NOW WHAT?

I have no doubt audio difference exist between gears so I am in the same camp as you and Dan in a sense. I also believe at a certain price point, many people will not be able to tell such difference in DBT situations. Some will, some won't, it depends on the person's hearing ability and whether they have been trained to detect those subtle differences. I can join both camps, if that's okay for you.

That said, I am surprised to read about those "huge", "day and night" type of improvements reported by people who simply hooked up a 3 channel power amp to their Denon 3805/Yamaha 2600/Pioneer Elite/HK preouts while retaining their existing speakers such as Paradigm monitor/studio series, Polk RTi series, or even lower level ones.

I couldn't help but to think that in some (not all) cases, people spent the money and they heard the difference as a result. Actually that happened to me a couple of years ago when the first time I hooked up an amp to my receiver, I thought the difference was significant. Eventually I realized it was not that significant.

 

[WmAx]

I cannot disagree with your general statement, but there are many engineers with, or without PHD in engineering, who are researchers. The line between the two group of professionals can be blurred so it is best to avoid such generic statement in this case IMHO.
.

Obviously, if someone is doing *both*, then they qualify, and could be classified as *both*.

-Chris

 

[mulester7]

.....guys, it's folly to say different equipment sounds the same concerning receivers and slave power....every manufacturer assigns a sonic signature they hope will bring home the bacon......