Amir and Blind Testing

 

I just did a blind test between my Benchmark LA4 preamp and my Conrad Johnson premier 16LS2 tubed preamp.

Blind testing can be a hassle so I indulge in it fairly rarely, but I've done a few over the years.  Fortunately the Benchmark preamp made a blind test pretty easy in terms of matching levels and quick switching (with the help of my son - we randomized switching etc).

Results of the first test were an easy 15/15 correct guesses as to which preamp was playing.   I'm still a fan of toobs!

Again there appears to be a strange belief that expectation bias only works one way.  I myself have been surprised on occasions where I expected a component to be bad, based upon price, reviews or friends comments, only to find the item did in fact exceed my expectations.

Interesting Pepsi Story! Thanks!

 

 

Pepsi is more " biting" then seems more interesting in the short term for me, but if i would drink cola long term each day i will probably set for Coke which is more body friendly for me or less agressive and less "surprizing" in a wrong way ... 😁😊

In the long run even wine cannot beat water source...No water taste the same by the way...

Wine is the same than acoustic it must be learned...Like sex which is not only complex gymnastic anyway but a loving and educated taste experience so to speak......

It remind me of sex in the long run with someone you love compared to a short run with a beautiful unknown woman you dont fall in love with and either she .... this short relation may act like a drug rush thats all...If you ever love a woman you know why...And if you are loved especially ...

There is a part of taste, sound and sexe experience that dont work the same either long run and short run in term of evaluation and experience.....

You cannot taste and evaluate in the short run and in the big run some bread like a very big load of sweets so good they are... One is for each day a necessary addition the other not...Their action on the body is not the same...One replenish the body the other act more like a drug...

You cannot taste and tune and evaluate rightfully the ratio LEV/ASW , nor timbre perception in the short run....And it is more easy to get SOME dynamic improved and SOME bass a bit better in the short run it work like a load of sweets like a drug...It is the reason why most people at best stop acoustic experiments after buying some costly or cheap acoustic panels...

And if we listen music an hour a day. the level of sound may be liked VERY HIGH it act like a drug on the body ... But if we listen 5 hours of music each day , the sound levels will be prefered lower...

And sorry but nevermind the taste, heavy rock dont work like a string quintet at all on the mind and on the body in the short term and in the long run either...

 

And everybody know that the evaluation of music and sound will be influenced by the brand name visibility...

It is one of the reason why my acoustic listening experiments were so enlightening for me... i became conscious how secondary are the brand name of gear piece for acoustic science results...I supposed here not too much difference in design qualities for sure between gear choices on the S.Q and design quality and price ratio scale... A 100 dollars amplifier is not a 50,000 bucks one...

Acoustic can make miracles change yes, but dont transform stone in bread like Christ did once ...

Any basically relatively good piece of gear will do the job, but not any room will help the system and would do his job to transform it on another level of experience... We need acoustic basic knowledge for that...

Acoustic is more important than the gear choice, especially if neither of your possible choices are completely wrong for sure or if one is not at the high end level and the other at the lowest level for sur.

..Audio magazine are like Colas publicity nothing more...Acoustic and psycho-acoustic rule with ,mechanical vibrations control and electrical noise floor control all audio experience........

Buying and plugging in the wall is not enough sorry at any price ...

 

My 500 bucks audio system  teach me so  with murmur to my ears !

 

😁😊

 

There are actually more facets to the Pepsi story. Look up the "Pepsi Challenge" on Wikipedia for several additional bits of information.

The reason Pepsi started doing a single-blind Pepsi vs. Coke challenge decades ago was because Pepsi was often preferred over Coke if the test was based on a single sip of cola. (Most people think this is due to the fact that Pepsi tastes a little sweeter than Coke.) However, Coke often was preferred when consumption occurred over a more extended period of time. This sounds a bit like nonoise’s ideas about extended listening vs. short-term listening.

If you’re really into these issues, take a look at a great study of how brain damage to the prefrontal cortex can affect blinded or semi-blind taste testing:

https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/3/1/1/1609184

 

This study showed that taste preferences were influenced by knowledge of the brand of cola, except in people with damage to the prefrontal cortex of the brain. I don’t know if this study has any implications for drinking wine, but it sounds like it could.

 

There are actually more facets to the Pepsi story. Look up the "Pepsi Challenge" on Wikipedia for several additional bits of information.

The reason Pepsi started doing a single-blind Pepsi vs. Coke challenge decades ago was because Pepsi was often preferred over Coke if the test was based on a single sip of cola. (Most people think this is due to the fact that Pepsi tastes a little sweeter than Coke.) However, Coke often was preferred when consumption occurred over a more extended period of time. This sounds a bit like nonoise's ideas about extended listening vs. short-term listening.

If you're really into these issues, take a look at a great study of how brain damage to the prefrontal cortex can affect blinded or semi-blind taste testing: 

 

This study showed that taste preferences were influenced by knowledge of the brand of cola, except in people with damage to the prefrontal cortex of the brain. I don't know if this study has any implications for drinking wine, but it sounds like it could.  

 

In my mind, my Pepsi story negates your audio listening hypothesis.

The two of you are right and wrong together and at the same time...

 

 

There is always a placebo effect and a nocebo effect at play...

For sure it is so....

We all are played by our expectation biases...Then my pepsi is your coke and vice versa....This is a common place fact in life and in science too...

 

But when this is said, all acoustic cues contributing to every acoustic factors exist objectively, they can be implemented and put in place with objective ratios between surfaces,volumes, various acoustic material content and various devices...

In the sound experience there is expectation biases and placebos, but what i listen to from my speakers/room emerge MOSTLY from my ability to control the room too or from my unability to do so...Not from my expectation biases...But from my acoustic knowledge and experiments...

 

Then explaining everything by expectation bias dont usually means much...

"Measuring tools fetichists" tend to negate any value to the expectation bias of the " subjective gear tasting fetichists"... And debates goes without end because they argued about the GEAR and they dont know HOW TO MODIFY AT WILL ALL ACOUSTICAL CUES contributing to the main acoustic factors and experiences in their room ...

The two main opposing groups of fetichist focus their attention on the gear pieces, one group subjectively, the other objectively...They ignore acoustic and psycho-acoustic or treat it like a secondary factor but it is the main one...

Acoustic/psycho acoustic is the science correlationg subjective and objective dispositions, ratios, and devices...

Buying an upgrade and plugging it in the wall with or without an objective measures set is SECONDARY business for the ultimate sound/music quality experience...Not the main business...

 

Acoustic is the sleeping princess and all pieces of gear are the 7 working dwarves, and the kissing prince is the psycho acoustic factor....

😁😊

 

There is also with the acoustic embeddings controls , the vibration/resonance mechanical control and the control over the electrical noise floor of the sysyem/room/house...

These three embedding controls are the KEY of a good sound experience not decimals about different piece of gear so important measures are for the design of a good piece of gear...

Is it not simple?

It is incredible that most people argue without end ignoring this three factors to audiophile perception and debating subjectively or objectively about a piece of gear...

All audio magazine are marketing sellers points not science , and almost useless to create our sonic heaven... It is not exagerated too much if i say so....By the way it is not because someone use technological tool that it is de facto science... Science need concepts not only tools...In audio the concepts come first and last from acoustic...

Anybody can buy a good basic piece of gear but knowing how to embed this working piece of gear in his mechanical, electrical and acoustical environment is the KEY...

i learn it the hard way...

And listening is not a placebo journey in deception, it is something we must learn, not by comparing various pieces of gear and calling our favorite brand name product the winner, but by training ourself in acoustic control : bass, timbre perception, dynamic, imaging, soundstage, LEV/ASW ratio, etc....

 

@nonoise ,

Can you point to any scientific papers that validate your hypothesis?

I have a strange past time. I strive to make the perfect cola syrup (preferably diet, but that is whole different ball of wax). We all have our vices. One of the many amateurs posted a blind taste test he did, absolutely convinced Coke was his personal Gold Standard. It would be the obvious best to him out of about 12 if my memory serves.

Decades of drinking Coke, and he didn't pick it out of a lineup as best. His preference, when everything but taste was taken out of the equation was Pepsi. Even though he had been conditioned for Coke.

I am sure there is a similar wine story, but I choose not to learn too much about wine lest it remove the pleasure of a bottle of good plonk.

In my mind, my Pepsi story negates your audio listening hypothesis.

Yes, kind of. Placebo is only used when there are two choices to make. Didn't mean to be a stickler, but I'm so tired of hearing that.

All the best,
Nonoise

I think we both know the  Placebo effect was merely a metaphor. This listener believes one device was sounding better than another when in fact it was the same device all along. 

No, it's not placebo. A placebo effect is short lived, leaving a dead patient. Placebo effect is the lousiest of analogies to use. If someone still enjoys what they're hearing over the long run, it's because it sounds good to them and is the antithesis of the"placebo effect". In fact, it reinforces the view that long term listening is the deciding factor.

All the best,
Nonoise

Haha, it’s placebo.

In the late 1970's I worked at a high-end audio shop in DC and they purchased what was then a "sophisticated" A/B switching unit, which allowed the user to switch back and forth between a pair of amplifiers (among other things).  I remember setting up a customer for an extended A/B comparison between a McIntosh 2205 and a Luxman LRS (Laboratory Reference System) power amp.  After a LONG audition the customer ordered the LRS amp, saying he thought that sounded "smoother" than the McIntosh.  I later found out that our tech had ordered a new main board for the switching unit, as it illuminated the lights for unit A and unit B when you pressed the button to make the switch, but the electronics inside the unit were not actually switching amplifiers...so my customer was actually only listening to the McIntosh amp.  When I found that out, I called him and let him know the situation, but he enjoyed the Luxman so much, he decided to keep it!

Jssmith, I appreciate your comments but I wouldn’t trust Amir’s opinion on judging the sound of anything. He’s obviously a horrible listener and the pure fact is he’s a measuring geek. He knows nothing about the quality of the sound of products. 

Are you still going on about this? You don’t even expect measurements from 99.9% of audio companies, but you nit pick because a test site that produces likely accurate results within the framework of the measurements they are taking, produces results you don’t like?

My background is physics, so not an EE, but I understand most of the terms pretty well as we use similar measurements.

I personally don’t care if the amplifier I bought was 200 wpc into ohms or 195. I will never hear the difference and it is an acceptable margin of error or manufacturing tolerance. I would care about 170 because I paid for 200 and that is not an acceptable tolerance. In my industry, we specify batteries are either +/- tolerance or +/-0 (no lower than) depending on the product / contract.

Now if I am not mistaken, harmonic measurements, which are more important than power as long as power is close, is a relative measurement.

As well, as we discussed previously, it appears the test equipment in question both ships calibrated, as well as has a source and receiver. That provides a level of inherent feedback on current calibration.

Last, due to the relative nature of the critical measurements, the best measuring tested device, if available, could be used a 2nd reference to calibration to set a minimum benchmark. For example, if the best device you tested had a THD of 0.0010 %, and you test it again, 0.0010, you can be confident in the current operation of your system to testing devices with equal or higher distortion. We have a wide range of "reference standards" in our labs and production for validating current calibration, not to mention you are calibrating a whole fixture or system, not one item provided by a 3rd party vendor.

 

So in my vanity, I will take several readings on my bathroom scale but accept only the lowest reading.  I don’t do a statistical calculation of the group of readings.  That’s the very definition of biased testing, I think.  And what’s it matter?   When I go to the Doctor’s office they will not accept my weight based on my scale’s readout.  They take their own measurement on their scale.  No one believes the test data except for the one who took it…

Most of you on this forum likely do not know or have ever heard of a gauge R&R.  Most also likely do not understand the concept of accuracy and precision.  That's not a slight.  This is a difficult concept and much work has been done to define it and apply it to test measuring equipment.  I want to start with something most of us know quite well- the bathroom scale.  If you are like me, we have a love/hate relationship with our bathroom scale.  It's a simple device that can either make or break our day and yet we typically do not think twice about whether or not it is telling us the truth.  What do I mean?  Well, for starters I can get on my bathroom scale three times consecutively and get three different readings with a range of 2 or more pounds.  Even worse, I find that I can move the scale around on the floor and get even more variation.  This is one of the newer scales with a digital readout to tenths of a pound.  While my bathroom scale indicates a precision of 0.1 lbs, the repeatability is much worse which implies the accuracy is likely off by a few pounds.  I don't know because my bathroom scale has no reference back to a standard.  I notice the scale at the Doctor's office has much better repeatability.  I see just 0- 0.1 lbs variation if I step off and back on again and the Doctor's scale has higher precision based only upon the display showing hundredths of a pound.  But I have rarely seen a calibration sticker on the scale in the Doctor's office.  I have seen stickers on the scales at a research dept and at the hospital.  Probably because they publish reports.  Accuracy is typically not well defined.  Typically, gages are rated accurate to within a certain percentage of full scale.  Let's say a bathroom scale is rated to +/-0.5% of full scale.  (Not likely that good for a $30 scale)  That means the manufacturer is stating that any reading will be (for a 400 lb scale) within +/-0.5% of 400 lbs or +/- 2 lbs.  So I could have lost one pound overnight but my bathroom scale might tell me that I gained one pound!  Isn't that frustrating.

What's my point?  Let's say you go to the butcher shop and you buy a 10 lb ham.  Then you stop by another shop and just to see, you weigh the ham on their scales and find it only weighs 9 lbs.  Wouldn't you be upset?   How about you stop at the gas station and buy 10 gallons of gasoline only to learn you actually got just 9 gallons.  Well, take comfort in knowing that by law those scales and gas pumps are calibrated back to a standard.  If you look at the scale at your butcher shop you should see a calibration sticker.  The same goes for your local gas pump.  Take a look on the face plate of the pump for the calibration sticker.  

If we count on these everyday items to telll us the truth then why not expect the same regarding measurements of stereo gear.  Knowing that calibration of the equipment to a standard was done, what test equipment was used, and also the procedure so that the measurements can be duplicated or verified by someone else is crucial to know that the data is telling us the truth.  Also important is to know how these particular measurement data relate to how the piece of gear performs.  For example, I can measure the resistance of two different speaker cables with an Ohmmeter or even a resistance bridge for more precision but still conclude no difference.  So why do they sound different?  Some speculate that better cables reject RF noise.  Sounds reasonable to me.  So why hasn't someone published test data showing the RF rejection characteristics of different cables?  Maybe they have but I just have not seen it.  This would not be easy testing.  It would require a Faraday cage and some sophisticated measurement equipment.  Still, we cannot and should not take every measurement at face value and make conclusions from that about what we are or are not hearing.  I had my own saying in Engineering:  "No-one believes the test data except for the person who took it.  Everyone believes the calculations except for the person who made them.

@henry53 

In a recent test Amir 'beheaded' a product (i.e. lowest rating) because it had an unacceptable 0.003% distortion. Can anyone can hear 0.003% distortion, are any speakers possible of even 0.03% distortion? What about 0.3% distortion? I have since listened and bought the product, it sounds wonderful, several others agree, the measurements have spoken,  but what do they mean?

I've seen him downgrade a product because it didn't measure as well as the competition or it was substantially more expensive with no gain in value. A downgrade doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't sound good.

The opposite is also true. I've seen him recommend products that don't necessarily measure well (although the flaws are still inaudible), but are a great value.

 

 

I think @atmasphere did a good job in his short post w.r.t. distortion https://forum.audiogon.com/posts/2377289

 

Again, if you were an metrology expert, you would know this.

Jez @deludedaudiophile Give him a break… he said he was a manager and not a technical expert.

 

… Since I was an Engineering Manager for several years with one of my responsibilities being test equipment design, calibration and repair in a major Aerospace Company I know that first hand.

Not if you are making technically implausible claims...no.

In many instances (not all, but many) we really can say, through measurements, that "X is bad" or "the difference you heard was in all likelihood your imagination."

It doesn’t matter what room you listened in. That would be like saying "I saw a working Perpetual Motion Machine!" A physicist explains why that is impossible and you reply "But did you test it in the guy’s GARAGE where I saw it? If not...your opinion doesn’t count!"

 

Instead of trying to understand my point...You put something i never said in my mouth here : 😋

For sure it is POSSIBLE to say with adequate measurements that some piece of gear is badly designed... Engineers know what they do in their design and used standards ....

Where i did speak about the contrary?

But you commit to an error if you think that measuring will be enough in ALL CASES and all time to judge between two products of similar price and/or  design...

You are intelligent for sure i dont doubt it and you already said that in your first sentence: yes you are right i dont make implausible technical claims either...

Acoustic method will not transform miraculously a bad design in a good one...

But now put my posts in their context, it is necessary ALSO to correlate listening with measures...

And between an upgrade in gear for example most of the times and acoustic improvement , the greatest possible improvement could come and come often from an improving controlled acoustical environment Why?

Because no piece of gear work optimally at his peak sound level PERCEIVED quality in a bad room or in a room uncontrolled...

We must learn how to listen (acoustic/psycho-acoustic) audiophiles or engineer alike...

I never say that Amirm measuring could not be useful, i said that some of his bullying disciples make communication difficult here or there...

It is the same here where a few are agressive toward those who focus mainly on measures...I myself trust only correlation method...Because we all love sound and music at the end...

 

My best to you.... And deepest respect...We may differ on many subjects but i know that you are an honest person...

 

I said we must listen any produtct in good acoustic condition...not only read some chosen electrical measures to assess his quality...The final quality of any audio system is DETERMINED by his relation to a ROOM acoustically controlled...

is it clearer?

 

Not if you are making technically implausible claims...no.

In many instances (not all, but many) we really can say, through measurements, that "X is bad" or "the difference you heard was in all likelihood your imagination."

It doesn't matter what room you listened in.   That would be like saying "I saw a working Perpetual Motion Machine!"  A physicist explains why that is impossible and you reply "But did you test it in the guy's GARAGE where I saw it?  If not...your opinion doesn't count!"

 

 

 

@csmgolf :

It would seem that robertdid, atdavid, audio2design, sugabooger, among many other user names, has reinvented himself once again. Same argumentative, condescending approach.

Yup! No doubt. I figured this out from the first few posts. Easy. 

 

 

 

It would seem that robertdid, atdavid, audio2design, sugabooger, among many other user names, has reinvented himself once again. Same argumentative, condescending approach. It is just amazing that he is that compelled to come back here again and again.

@tonywinga what does lying about your qualifications and experience say about you?

@tonywinga

 

Bud, you referenced a 35 year defunct organization and didn’t even know it ... 35 years. ANYONE with actual working experience dealing with anything related to calibration and standards would not have done that. Just who do you think you are fooling? Again you referenced an organization defunct for 35 years. Not one or 2 years, 35 years. You are not fooling anyone.

 

PS the important acronyms and items of interest are NIST/ NVLAP, A2LA, IAS who are members/adhere to ILAC/APLAC so their results are accepted anywhere, and ISO/IEC 17025 defining their operation. Most of our equipment can only be calibrated by the manufacturer most of which have been certified by one of those bodies listed above.

deluded audiophile, your behavior- argumentative, disrespectful of others, spending 5 seconds reading about something on the internet and thinking you are an expert, indicates that you are a young adult living in your mom's basement somewhere who has accomplished nothing.  Step away from the keyboard and go outside and play.  The sunshine will do you good.

@tonywinga

 

Who do you think you are fooling? Do you think people referencing 35 year defunct organizations like they still exist are taken seriously by anyone but the deluded? You need to get with reality bud no one buying your story. Throwing ISO or MIL into a sentence does not mean you know anything. If anything that you don’t reference specific standards shows you are just attempting to grandstand in the hopes someone will believe you. Those are not  standards. One is a standards body, the is just some letters. Mil spec standards are across a range of entities.

P.s. the battery venture is doing fine, it’s a good business to be in, lab budget almost unlimited but tied to profitability. Only small companies send their stuff out for calibration. The equipment we have that can be calibrated is done on site. But you wouldn’t know that.

 

 

 

 

Deludedaudiophile, good luck with your battery venture.  You might want to learn more about metrology.  You can take some courses or learn more from the ISO or MIL Q Specs about test equipment certification and traceability.  These are industry standards and plenty of calibration labs around the country to get your test equipment calibrated and certified for a reasonable cost.  Turnaround times are pretty quick if no repairs are needed.  

This is your first post criticizing me with a TRUNCATED sentence from my original post :

With this truncated extract everyone can think rightfully so that i speak badly about ALL PEOPLE participating in ASR forum...

 

@mahgister

 

I understood quite clearly what you posted. You without any lack of clarity accused the users of the Audio Science site of ignorance wrt the need for room acoustic treatment. I will post it again.

Their common point is a total ignborance of acoustic condition because they need electrical tools they dont need to tune a room... All rooms are equal for their activities....

This is in my experience and to anyone who happens to visit there patently false.

I expect you went there and tried to tell some experts in acoustics how to do acoustics, and it was not well received. Based on your posts, it is likely you made some claims wrt what you could accomplish by ear alone that from my own audio journey is not impossible.

 

Audiophiles can’t have it both ways. You have Tony complaining that a device was not recently calibrated to a 35 year defunct Bureau of Measurements meanwhile almost no companies in this industry supply any measurements let alone NIST traceable while you claim that your ears are "accurate" enough. Surely you see the irreconcilable issue here?

 

With this truncated quotation of my post , anybody can think that i spoke about EVERYONE on ASR and not about a "few bullys"...For sure...

You quoted my COMPLETE post ONLY  after my 2 answering posts about your insinuation, thanks....

Then everybody can read my real intention clearly and your misinterpretation of my ORIGINAL post and intention ...

 

 

Do you learned how to read? i think so if i read your posts...

Perhaps my english is not exemplary i dont doubt that...But your interpretation is not my words...

it is evident here that i spoke about SOME people on ASR not about ALL people there..

i even precisely mention a "few bullys"...

I must conclude after your insult that you have a grudge about me here because you seem too much intelligent to be unable to read the context..Who are you then? you are new here, and i welcome you, and you picked one of my post, misread it in an evident way and you go on after me... Comical...

 

For example in my post  , "their common point"; "their" refer to whom here?

it refer to the "few bullys"...not to the ASR site in his totality...

Anybody read that clearly in my post and not your distorted interpretation...

I know you are clever, then what i must conclude?

I even said many times here and in this post that Amirm was polite and honest then what?

There is only 2 possibilities you have a grudge against me but i dont know you then i must conclude to your bad faith...

Sorry but i refuse to think that you cannot know how to read a text like an idiot..You are not an idiot, you are evidently very intelligent... Then you quoted me in bad faith...For whatever reason i dont know...

Are you one of the few bullys on ASR?

your choice of name for your avatar goes in this interpretative direction...

It is the first time someone insult me here AFTER i welcome him on another thread where he was attacked...Comical...

 

 

😁😊

 

«

They are many pompuous very clever but closed minds ignoring anything resembling a listening experiments but Amir was polite...There are good people also there listen me right but they are dominated by a minority of bullys protecting the master...They are easy to recognized, some come here ridiculizing anyone who listen with his ears... Their common point is a total ignborance of acoustic condition because they need electrical tools they dont need to tune a room... All rooms are equal for their activities...»

My quote did not remove any relevant context.

 

Anybody can be proven to make a false statement with any extract of words...

With this avatar name you dont seem to be of good faith if i think about it after your insult.....

Only an idiot can say that there is no acoustic expertise here in all the audiogon forum or on ASR... I am not an idiot ...This was not my point....This is explained in my last 2 posts...

You take advantage of some bad sentence out of the context of all my posts here to pick fleas in my neck...

Be it...

I never insulted you and this is a FACT ....

No distortion of my posts context will change this simple fact: to assess a product we need to listen to it in well determined acoustic condition... this is in all my posts here...You can distort this simple fact and claim that i said that there is no acoustic specialist on ASR if you want and  put that in my mouth... This is stupid claim i never did...There is acoustician here and in any other big audio sites...

This does not change the fact that most people in audio UNDERESTIMATE acoustic power concerning S.Q. improvement versus a new electronic design upgrade... This is my point...

Measuring the gear is not enough to judge 2 designs one against the other...Acoustic here is key...

it is clear even with my bad english syntax..

 

Welcoming me does not change the fact you made a false statement, that I did not take out of context. That would near impossible given what you said, and you both will not admit to the actual words you wrote nor their meaning. I don’t perceive any ability to have a coherent honest conversation with you.

 

 

 

Welcoming me does not change the fact you made a false statement, that I did not take out of context.  That would near impossible given what you said, and you both will not admit to the actual words you wrote nor their meaning. I don’t perceive any ability to have a coherent honest conversation with you.

Mahgister, you appear unable to both form a coherent paragraph, nor stay on topic. Throwing out names like Helmholtz nor TYPING IN CAPS does not make your point any more succinct or accurate nor confer any expertise on you.

By the way i never insulted you, i even welcome you, remember?

 

 

Then instead of insults try to discuss..

I never pretend to any SCIENCE... I pretend to have experimented in my room and to my surprize discovered many acoustic basic facts that change my listening experience...

Then i spoke about what i know: SOME acoustic and psycho acoustic basic fact help more than upgrading our piece of gear generally ... Especially costly one for MOST people and especially if what we already own is relatively good to begin with... I dont speak about people or for people who can afford anything at any cost here...

Second: speakers cannot sound the same in different SMALL room...

Third: it is easy to deduce from that that reviewing piece of gear by only measuring some electrical characteristic is not enough..

No need of a doctorate in digital engineering for that..

i hope all is clearer ...

 

 

By the way i dont throw the name of Helmholtz to be smart , i used some different devices with his name on them...

I used capital letters to insist on a word... This is not like your sentence about me which is an insult, but just a way to be best understood...

And also i said already many times here i dont doubt that Amir of ASR is honest... Some of his disciples less honest...They develop the idea that we can assess quality of a product without listening in the proper acoustic condition, and they use some electrical measures to mock anybody who like a product after listening to it only...These few disciples called anyone who listen without knowing the numbers meanings a "deluded audiophile" is this ring a bell ? 😁😊

My opinion is less simplistic  than the opinion of most audiophile or the opinion of  some ASR disciples : we must takes any measures seriously yes for sure, but we must listen ALSO the product in a very well controlled acoustic room.. This is the way to speak about ANY audio product for me..

Is it clear enough?

By the way english is not my first language, i only read english dont speak it well..

But i think that my 2 last post are COHERENT...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mahgister, you appear unable to both form a coherent paragraph, nor stay on topic. Throwing out names like Helmholtz nor TYPING IN CAPS does not make your point any more succinct or accurate nor confer any expertise on you. You made a blanket statement that the users of Audio Science do not care about room acoustics. That is patently false. There is no walking that back. You made a false statement. It would be best to just admit it.

You extracted my sentence of his context...

Nobody in his right mind can clain that there is no one interested by acoustic here or in ASR... this will be false... this is evident for ANYONE...

Second: I spoke about some people in ASR claimingv that measuring a piece of gear say all there is too say about his Sound quality...

I said we must listen any produtct in good acoustic condition...not only read some chosen electrical measures to assess his quality...The final quality of any audio system is DETERMINED by his relation to a ROOM acoustically controlled...

is it clearer?

Dont pick fleas in my back, try to understand context...

I am not sure why you are comparing your room to headphones. They don’t sound the same. That is an apples and orange comparison and does not mean anything.

 

First anybody in his right mind know that we cannot compare headphones with speakers...They are different BUT.......They cannot be compared en GENERAL, they can be compared by an owner in his room...

Second i prefer my speakers now to all my headphones why?

Because i can replicate the INTIMACY we feel with headphones with my room/speakers ...And all other acoustic cues are on par or better with my speakers..

With the same system it was not the case a few years ago without any acoustic control of my room... i prefered headphones at this time in the same uncontrolled room...

is it clearer?

 

The acoustics discussions are definitely deeper there, but of course more focused on studios and mixing spaces. The concepts are similar though.

i dont doubt a second that the acoustic discourse is better on ASR than here...i know that there is more "specialist" there than here...

 

This does not means that measuring a piece of gear ONLY and only measuring it is the final word about his quality...If Amir say i take measure and this dac is good this other bad...This is not enough  information about the sound quality of anything... Improving Acoustic conditions in my experience beat most  upgrade... This is my point...

The final word is a listening in the room with a good acoustic...

A reviewer speaking of any product in a non treated and non controlled room for me cannot give the final word... be it here, in an audio magazine or in ASR...

 

 

 

Mahgister, you appear unable to both form a coherent paragraph, nor stay on topic. Throwing out names like Helmholtz nor TYPING IN CAPS does not make your point any more succinct or accurate nor confer any expertise on you. You made a blanket statement that the users of Audio Science do not care about room acoustics. That is patently false. There is no walking that back. You made a false statement. It would be best to just admit it.

I hired an expert who participated on the Audio Science site. He came highly recommended and his references included professional studios, many business who set up studios, and high end residences. I had a great chat there with another gentleman who is a distinguished Bell Labs scientist. I have even ran into an old colleague from my TI days, I was working on a wafer process that was critical to a product he was lead on.  Oh, I also chatted with someone from Gik there too (the acoustic panel guys). So your claim about acoustics experts not participating there is also false. I did get directed to Gearslutz (now Gearspace) for a deeper dive into some acoustics discussions. The acoustics discussions are definitely deeper there, but of course more focused on studios and mixing spaces. The concepts are similar though.

I am not sure why you are comparing your room to headphones. They don't sound the same. That is an apples and orange comparison and does not mean anything.

Dude is a ASR troll.

I manufacture batteries @tonywinga , or more specifically I develop the technology for the batteries that are manufactured. The only thing I am defending is common sense and against those that try to look like they know what they are talking about when they really don't. This place is great for music suggestion, good for speakers, and I like looking at rooms for design ideas which is why I have read it over the years. Some of the best music suggestions you will find. Otherwise, too many people who are convinced of their expertise in all things audio though they have likely not seen a physics class since high school. They are easy to tell, they throw around terms like Bureau of Standards in 2022, even thought it was eliminated in the 1980's. At that point it becomes obvious they picked up a term from someone else who also did not know what they are talking about either. It's tedious, and it is disrespectful to spread false information under the guise of fake expertise to a community that supposedly you respect.

By the way i dont pretend to teach their job to acoustician...

I pretend to have been able to tune my room..

Then dont put in my mouth what serve your goal...

And in case you dont know it, SMALL ROOM acoustic is a recent field in acoustic science investigations ... The market for small room acoustic is few decades old...Amphitheater exist for millenia...

i dont pretend to know anything, i only experimented 2 years non stop in my room...

And my room beat my 8 headphones... it is not perfect but it is enough for me..

And by the way the best acoustician in the world are on the net with their articles and books... They are not in the ASR site...And if they are there. did they contradict the idiotic way to judge a piece of gear by numbers alone ? Inform me about that i dont know... 😊

How do you think i learn to tune my room? By consulting acoustician articles on the internet...And creating my own experiments...

Serious Acousticians are not dwelling in audiophile forum for sure and not in your ASR site either , they WORK ...

Read my post right please before categorizing me in the "deluded audiophile "box your avatar name suggest....

I expect you went there and tried to tell some experts in acoustics how to do acoustics, and it was not well received.

 

Sorry but the way a piece of gear could be evaluated is in a specific ROOM ONLY ... Not by an electrical partial chosen set of measures ONLY ...CORRELATION BETWEEN MEASURES AND ROOM is NECESSARY ...

That was my point...

I know perfectly well that there is all kind of people in this site, even acousticians...

But claiming that a piece of gear is "bad" without listening it in a controlled acoustic is BULLSHIT...And this is what Amir does often and his disciples who attack "deluded audiophile" if you know what i means...

And it is perfectly possible to tune a room by ears, i have done it to my satisfaction AT NO COST...It is not perfect but it works...Helmholtz did it before me and the Egyptian...

I dont need any headphones now nor any upgrade nor any advice by fools who think measuring some aspects of a dac without listening to it is the way to chose one...

Then read me right... Iam not a deluded audiophile nor a deluded measuring fool...

If there exist only 2 cases in your audio brain; deluded audiophile and measuring fool, add a third one for me...call it CORRELATING EARS AND MEASURES guy...

😁😊

I understood quite clearly what you posted. You without any lack of clarity accused the users of the Audio Science site of ignorance wrt the need for room acoustic treatment. I will post it again.

Their common point is a total ignborance of acoustic condition because they need electrical tools they dont need to tune a room... All rooms are equal for their activities....

deludedaudiophile, you seem very defensive about this topic. I get the impression that you manufacture a product and are trying to rationalize not using certified or calibrated test equipment. That would be sloppy work indeed. Any manufacturer publishing specifications for their product should be backing up those specs with data from certified, calibrated instrumentation. If not, they could find themselves in hot water I would think if not able to defend their published claims.

@mahgister 

 

I understood quite clearly what you posted. You without any lack of clarity accused the users of the Audio Science site of ignorance wrt the need for room acoustic treatment. I will post it again.

Their common point is a total ignborance of acoustic condition because they need electrical tools they dont need to tune a room... All rooms are equal for their activities....

This is in my experience and to anyone who happens to visit there patently false.

I expect you went there and tried to tell some experts in acoustics how to do acoustics, and it was not well received. Based on your posts, it is likely you made some claims wrt what you could accomplish by ear alone that from my own audio journey is not impossible.

 

Audiophiles can't have it both ways. You have Tony complaining that a device was not recently calibrated to a 35 year defunct Bureau of Measurements meanwhile almost no companies in this industry supply any measurements let alone NIST traceable while you claim that your ears are "accurate" enough. Surely you see the irreconcilable issue here?

 

Look, you didn't even know the bureau of standards has been defunct for 35 years. Don't try to invent a backstory at this point in some questionable call to authority with made up qualifications. You didn't even know what NIST was till I put it in a post. If you were truly an engineering manager involved with metrology, you would know this. You did not.

You don't know what would be calibrated on a spectrum analyzer, let alone an audio one, or even how it would be relevant to the information being presented, most of which is differential in which case, calibration is effectively of no meaning. Whether one item is 1 and the other is 1.1, or one is 1.1, and the other is 1.21 is not relevant in a differential comparison. Again, if you were an metrology expert, you would know this. Similarly, whether something is 1.000KHz or 1.001KHz in audio would not be important. If it was, we could never use turntables.

On top of that, many instruments today incorporate self calibration features. In a device with an independent generator and recorder, if the recorded result matches the expected generator output, then you can be rather confident of the calibration.

 

tonywinga

193 posts

04-16-2022 at 01:08pm 

Wow, another self proclaimed expert.  Spectrum and frequency analyzers do need to be calibrated.  Since I was an Engineering Manager for several years with one of my responsibilities being test equipment design, calibration and repair in a major Aerospace Company I know that first hand.  All test equipment should be traceable back to the Bureau of Standards or NIST for serious test work or analysis.

Learning how to listen to our stereo systems is very important.  So back in the day I could walk into a real live brick and mortar store and hear a state of the art stereo.  Then I would go home and listen to my system and I would think, "wow, my system sucks."  Now I would go back to the store and listen again to see why the stereo in the store sounds better.  Is it the amp, the speakers, the preamp, the source or the room?  What about the sound is better at his store vs my no good stereo at home? This could also apply to a friend or group of hobbyists where you have the opportunity to listen to their systems.

An equipment manufacturer might want to bring in some mics and measurement equipment to understand why the sound is better but most of us learned to depend on our ears and our notes.  In fact, without the opportunity to hear other stereo systems - be it at a friends house or a store, our systems can become quite off and we not even realize it.  At least until we get in our car one day and think, "Man! This car stereo sounds better than my home stereo."  Been there too.

For example, about two years ago now I got to hear the Alexia 2's in Atlanta for the first time.  I went home and thought, wow the bass in my stereo system sucks.  I went back and listened some more and started hearing the differences between the  Alexia's and my speakers.  I was just about ready to drop some serious $$$ for new speakers but decided to first work on my room, speaker placement and I also added subwoofers which took another several months to position and tune.  I'm at the point where my system has bass almost as good as the Alexia's but good enough at least that I'm no longer motivated to upgrade.  It took me several months of work, including putting in a wood floor but I can say from experience that speakers are not the number one influence on the sound.  It is the room and then the electronics.  Of course, the speakers have to be reasonably qualified.

My point is some actual measurements are needed at times but critical listening skills can guide us to build exceptional systems.  

Oh, and the other thing- it took months to find the best position for the speakers and subs because what sounded good one day sounded terrible another day.  It can take time and patience to get dialed in.  I also spent some time listening to the Wilsons over a year plus and I did buy some other gear at that store since I spent so much time there.  I still think they are great speakers.

To someone with a hammer everything looks like a nail.

That is so funny 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I don't think the problem with Amir is calibration.  Even if the instrument is off a little bit it shouldn't matter.  The problem with Amir is he doesn't have a clue what he's measuring.

Ears Training is not an audiophile or only an acoustician matter it is a musician affair too..

Correlating subjective impressions with objective disposition of acoustic devices or content or ratios is the ONLY WAY...

Measuring with some tool a piece of gear and claiming without listening to it in controlled environment that the tool say the gear is good or bad is beyond ridiculous, exactly like vouching for the market publicity of gear....

Stupidity has no borderline... My borderline in audio is CORRELATION between the gear potential  the room acoustic ratios   and the ears...