The claim of the ignorant. We have 0 issue measuring differences. What we can’t do is interpret how some may perceive that. However, we are pretty good at determining if it will be perceptible. How do you measure natural timbre perception in a room refining the room settings WITHOUT human ears? For depth imaging it is the same thing ? HOW ? I forget that you dont even know they are MAINLY and FIRST and LAST neuro-physiological phenomena coming from the room AND the speakers tuning, not from electronic settings which is necessary but secondary.... Then they are NO WAY to measure timbre perception and depth imaging WITHOUT human ears... An electronic tool is only that a tool, not a MEASURE of the perceived timbre or depth imaging....The real measure is provided by the listening ears....For sure it is theoretically possible if we use an A.I. to mimic that, but we speak here bout the normal tools at hands and the usual condition in audio experience... Anyway, anyone knowing what are these phenomema and when emerge these phenomena in a room for some ears know that it not possible to recreate them out of electronic method ONLY.... Save for a perfect audio laboratory where all variables could be controlled no ears are needed there for sure except at the end to assess the job done... Then your affirmation that all could be measured witout EARS is false in the usual settings of the average listener... EARS are mandatory here to controls the parameters of ALL tools at hands... Saying half truth is distorting reality.... |
My point is that when doing evaluations regarding tweaks and the like quality of the equipment is critical. You may hear it on a budget system but not to the same degree or at least not in my experience. I dont know what a "tweak" is... Save for the fact that it is considered by half audiophiles useless and "snake oil", that is to say costly secondary additions to the system which basic electronic design is the most important part of the H-i-Fi experience for most...Sorry but to good electronic design which is half of the story, you must add the system tuning being the other half of audio experience... I am sorry but controls over the 3 working dimensions of a system comes from exprienced and experimental listenings, may dont cost a dime, are not secondary additions to a system, but on the opposite the tools by which this system would work at his peak potential... All systems at any price vibrate and ask for a control over vibrations and a control also over resonances... It is the mechanical working embedding dimension....No system at any cost can replace these controls... All systems at any price contributed to the electrical noise floor of the house grid where they are embedded and to the noise floor of the gear with which they are connected.... All that noise ask for a minimal control over the general noise floor and not only of each piece of gear to optimize his working... No system at any cost could work without being embedded in a general electrical noise floor to which they contributed too individually..... All systems at any price are embedded in a room where the quality of air pressure will varied zone to zone, and will ask to be controlled by the law of Helmholtz acoustic controls, the reflecting sound waves will be such reflected , absorbed such and diffused such, and will asked also to be controllled in the right balance for any system to be working at his optimal acoustical potential....These ask dor passive material acoustical control and more active one...The room is NOT a passive player.... If you think that these controls over the three embeddings working dimensions are only illusions, secondary "tweaks", snake oil, if you think that the price of a system is a warrent against vibrations, against a too high noise floor of the house grid and room, a warrent against some basic acoustical laws which are the most important laws in the perception of musical sound.... Think again... Go from consumerism in audio magazine to basic very elementary science....Or go on with the fools calling that placebos or snake oil and warmly recommending to throw money on "upgrades" till the end of the world and the end of technology....It is called chasing the moon and chasing your tails.... My low cost system has been trasnformed by elementary science, elementary common sense, and basic listenings experiments, at low cost... It is not necessary to buy costly "tweaks", you can devise yourself all which is necessary by listenings experiments.... When the piano or complex harmony decays of harpsichord fill the room, a brass orchestra, or a choir, the sound filling the room , exceeding all limits from the speakers, with the benchmark test of a deep imaging balanced between his width and his hability to encompass the listener, when the natural timbre of instrument and voices is there and rightly perceived, the goal is reached... Price has nothing to do with a very good experience BUT tuning, controlling the working embeddings dimensions is the ONLY key... Nobody can make a good hi-fi experience violating mechanical physic, electrical physic and acoustical science.... Sorry... The designer designed their good gear, they do not controls the location, the connection, the synergy with the precise other pieces of gear with which their own gear will be working, nor the noise floor created in the house/room/system and certainly no designer of any piece of gear even the speakers can act on your acoustical setting in the room at distance and in advance... My 3 maxims are simple: The tuning of a system is more important than the system itself... Dont upgrade anything before embedding everything right... ONE single straw could kill a room or ressuscitate it....So powerful is Helmholtz science.... |
Give me any relative good system at low price i will make it reach the stars...Even if am an average guy i love audio tough.....
I am not arrogant like audio2design with my alleged "superior knowledge" it is only elementary acoustic science directly coming from Helmholtz...I called that simple listenings experiments...
When you dont even know that "timbre" is an acoustical concept and an experience impossible to recreate without acoustical room control , when you think that "imaging" comes from the electronic design of speakers mainly.... What do you know in audio? Way less than Helmholtz for sure...
I read the thread about "imaging" and i deduced that most people dont know how to create it with 2 speakers in a room... Precise location or angle between speakers, volume, synchronisation of drivers, etc are not enough sorry...
I discovered 2 days ago the solution in a japanese research article in acoustical physics written in 2008... Understanding what imaging is finally, at least for me the beginning of an understanding, the same night i devised immediately an experiment, very simple one that recreate an imaging better than the one i already have , filling all my room ....
No it is not related to the drivers, intensity, phase, volume, orientations of the speakers mainly...they play a role for sure but NOT the main role....
You know why?
Because "imaging" is not FIRST a physical concept in engineering, it is an acoustical concept and a phenomenon in the neurophysiology of perception.... Then how to recreate a perfect imaging? It takes 2 facts put together here, one in Helmholtz acoustical physical science and the other is a law in neurophysiology of acoustic perception... You add the 2 and you have "imaging" and the way to create it in any room with any speakers...
I ask audio2design to read the article, he never reply....He bashed "audiophiles like if they all are the same idiot", he does not take anything seriously because he think he knows everything...He dont understand "timbre " i prove and verify it with a musician here and he react by accusing the musician to be a liar, the same for "imaging" and he does not even know that he dont understand these concepts ,all his arguing with another engineer whom he bashed to be an ignorant about speakers drivers illustrated this perfectly...
Anyway It takes me a few hours to translate the japanese research in an experiment which by the way was a complete immediate success...
i know how to create "imaging" with any speakers now, not by virtue of my unborn knowledge or superiority above others but ONLY because i stumble on the right paper explaining clearly what is this phenomenon exactly....And my knowledge, even if elementary of Helmholtz acoustic, helped me a lot... one +one+ two...
I will not wait for audio2design impression of the article, i am too "limited audiophile " for him to adress that with me...
Anyway i wll comment this article and my experiment on the week to come in my thread about "miracles in audio".... This experiment make me able to create my last acoustical embedding control device...
I sell nothing save creativity... Hi-fi experience cost peanuts when you know what to do....All the rest is consumerism...And boasting about pricey electronics....Hi-Fi experience is mainly working ACOUSTIC ,nothing else....
|
Show me what technical apparatus Stradivarius used in building violins other than his ears and we might be getting somewhere on this....Acoustics is a multidimensional, inexact science, that’s why concert halls are built by masters using lots of technology AND their ears. Any half decent sound engineer will tell you the same. Acoustic is at the exact crossroads of many sciences and your post is right on the target... Ears are mandatory in this science and object of study and tools at the same time... This is why acoustic is very complex and the last book i begin to read about "timbre" concepts appeal to more than a dozen fields... Timbre Acoustics, Perception, and Cognition by Kai Siedenburg, Charalampos Saitis, Stephen McAdams, Arthur N. Popper, Richard R. Fay Only "skeptic club" sunday scientist think otherwise... I even read by one audiophile "professional" skeptic here that we must not trust our own ears in any time.... It is very comical and tragic also to read this amount of insanity....He think an equalizer suffice to controls a room acoustic...This is pure market conditioning... You dont construct a house with one tool.... Better many tools especially the main tool : the ears... |
I think you are right on target too...
|
Biases are pervasive in all experiments and science fields, that does not invalidate experiments.... The truth is that without biases there will not exist any experiment only robots... Experiment are born in the mind of a scientist with his own conclusions and biases, his own humanity so to speak... There is no problem with that....
It is the "repeatability" that characterise empirical science not the erasing of biases "per se", except in the "skeptic club" ....Some biases are right being conscious, others are wrong being habits or unconscious... Biases must be controlled not erased....Self controls of our own prejudices is necessary but erasing them completely is futile and impossible anyway...
Collective consensus in science is in relation with repeatable experiments...Not necessarily a blind test....😁
Biases are like moles and blind spots, you dont want to erase them all at all cost it is impossible for some but you want to be conscious of them or make them conscious in the course of the experiment itself....
Peer reviewing is another matter i will not discuss related also to big problems of his own...It is also a way to social corporate control of science in some aspect and is not always positive.... Look now where many scientific publish all their results on the net to keep their freedom and go away from dictatorial institutions... |
If you ever discover what the word empirical means in a scientific sense, not an audiophile sense, then maybe we would have something to talk about. I don’t hold up much hope of that happening though. I dont just serve only insults like you did... I give you a serious research article.... I suggest an experiment... You discreetly avoid these 2 points, article and experiment about "imaging", not from wiki here, but research paper, and go on attacking the person... You take the same attitude in the last month with EVERYONE who disagree with you or everyone you disagree with...They are liars, deluded and incompetent... I am not a liar but i could be deluded, why not?, and i am certainly incompetent in audio science but i can understand a research paper not too slowly and i can experiment by myself and learn fast....I did it in the last 2 years and i am proud of my peanuts cost very good audio system...Thanks to my low cost embeddings controls... Then you dont answered to my arguments only give me like usual an attack with no meaning about something a little far from my article and experiment : my alleged ignorance of what is "empirical" and your knowledge of it... An article of research is not ethereal philosophy and an experiment is something very empirical to do.... Why going back to epistemology now? I will mute myself .... Discussing with you is not very rewarding, it was so about the acoustical concept of timbre and it is the same thing now for imaging.... Meditate on this: knowledge is NOT understanding....Experiments are located between these 2 and encompass them at the same time....It is my koan .... Try to imagine that attacking "audiophiles" make no sense at all, because this group encompass idiots and geniuses and all there is in between like any group, even the group to which you are a proud member..... |
If you call a blind test fruitless, you have just basically stated that your opinion is worthless. Do you think Helmholtz ever needed an equalizer in his times to set his music room right? A clue: no more than the Wright brothers needed a boeing 747 to prove flight.... Do you think he ever needed a blind test to prove his room is acoustically well set? A clue: no more than Faraday, devising experiments for the coming Maxwell, needed blind test.... If you think so in spite of common sense and history of science, you are doubly wrong, it is called acoustic and it is also an empirical science even today.... Then apply to yourself this sentence you wrote for others.... You may want to think on that one a bit more before saying it again. Have you read the japanese acoustic article yet? I cannot wait to communicate to you how an "idiotic audiophile" like me read a research paper with an experiment of his own on the "imaging" concept you seems to know like the "timbre" concept .... A clue: it is acoustic not material or electronic engineering.... With this experiment i just created my last control device for the acoustical working embedding dimension ... Cost: peanuts....Effect on S.Q. : Huge, that is to say, more than audible if you want, transformative.... But you can call that a stupid "tweak" and speaking of placebo effect .... But it is a pure application of Helmholtz science, nothing less, nothing more.... Thanks to the Japanese article for the inspiration.... |
Your too nice Master mahgister. :-) Thanks but you are a gentleman and i only tried to be a little bit like you are with me and others... You observation about organ pipes was spot on thanks.... Your Confucius is more humorous than my Groucho tough, and i am afraid of competition now....😊 My best to you.... |
Page upon page of philosophy and preaching, not a single bit of self reflection. Apply this to yourself, mocking all people who dare to differ and insulting all group especially those you despisely call "audiophiles".. i suggested to you a research paper from 3 japan physicists acoustician published in 2008 about "imaging" a concept you are supposed to understand like the "timbre" concept ... Not only you "yawned" but never read it... I read it 2 days ago and this night make a simple original experiment that change the acoustic of my room at no cost...I will speak about it in the time to come after some others experiments...It is my last successful listenings experiment with NO cost devices.... I will wait for your criticism of their take on imaging probably till end times.... It is way better than your own take on imaging by the way... Try to guess what is this simple experiment that i devised last night proving them right for myself...no the experiment i devised is NOT in their paper....Sorry you will need what some call thinking to figure it out.... call that homework... 😁😊😎 How do do call my talk and walking? am i stupid like all audiophiles are supposed to be? How do you compare this article and experiment with your attack on people? Who need self reflection here? It is me now that "yawn" discussing with you.... In my job i advised students about their readings in their field, them they looked for truth not for dogmas....I miss all of them, not some few teachers tough, those few full of themselves....Guess who you remind me of? «I am done seeking answers,my pocket is full of those i will ever need»-Groucho Marx |
You have no proof that painting that cable, or lifting it up on blocks, or burning it in, or switching it with another makes any difference at all. You only have claims. My listening methods and experiments are not ADDING "tweaks" after buying something... The three things you listed here are NOT my propositions but claims always discussed in all audio thread beginning with Abel And Cain....True or not, i dont even know for sure... I propose myself simple experiments in the mechanical, electrical and acoustical dimensions... I called that controls over working embeddings dimensions not "tweaks".. My controls devices are not secondary addition to a system, they are more powerful than the system upgrade itself... I learn only one thing in audio: tuning a system is more important than buying a system.... I am not in a cable obsessions club either nor in the "skeptic club" but in listenings experiments... «Skeptic club are like club for men unable to marry accusing women, myself i am in love and i dont doubt, i create»-Myself «What in the hell do you create ?»-Groucho Marx «My own joy and my own audio system.»-Myself «How do you know without blind test ?»-smiling Groucho |
Mahgister - I can’t think of anyone who needs to accept and use blind testing or null testing more than you.
You have all the characteristics of an innovator - an inquiring mind, a desire for improvement, and a willingness to experiment.
But you have no proof. The null tester in the link I posted has proof - scientific and engineering proof - that the $3 and $1000 interconnects passed the audio in exactly the same way.
You have no proof that painting that cable, or lifting it up on blocks, or burning it in, or switching it with another makes any difference at all. You only have claims. You miss my point read my last post a second time... Blindtest are useful for ONE single small change, for an engineer in a small task or a company driving a scientific and a commercial project to reassure customers and themselves... I am NOT a customer nor a manufacturer, i dont need to be reassured by blind tests...I dont work in a commercial project like an engineer who was sometimes in the need to convince another engineer in the same project about a very small audible change...My project is my audio system and room... Most of my changes are not small, they are big enough to be very audible for the best or worst, they are incremental and cumulative....No need to be reassured at all... When Helmholtz designed his famous bottle do you think he ask for a blind test? An experiment is repeatable generally and very evident... My last discovery this evening is very powerful and could change acoustically completely a room S.Q., do you think i was needing a blindtest this night for reassuring me? I will speak of it later after new experiments not blindtest.... 😁 Blindtests are for mass designers or consumers, or they are in audio threads for people that have never themselves designed listenings experiments at all and never created their own triple embeddings controls over the working dimensions of their system.... Blind test are for those who bought something generally costly, plug it in the wall and play the source.... They need to be reassured... This is not my case at all.... I never bought anything, i dont wait passively after plugging it.... I think experiment, listen, after that i think anew, i experiment anew, i listen anew... I never blindtest myself, save accidentally, guess why by yourself? To satisfy those who accuse without trying anything all audiophiles to be passive idiots needing to be tested against placebo? Are you kidding? Thanks for your generous assessment of my character.... I am only a little bit active because i was lacking the money to buy plug and play.... If not i would have never worked during 2 years on my system and room and would have never devised all my "nutty" devices, i will be here after spending my money on consumer products asking for a blind test for some costly doubtful product before or after satisfying my "upgrade" urgency... I dont upgrade because i dont need it.....I will perhaps accidentally like this night devise another new experiment, i dont know but without needing to test my listening experience in my room .... For sure i will let blindtest for manufacturers and those in the "skeptic club".....My room is my day by day experience no need to prove it, to whom? I sell nothing, only propose peanuts cost experiments to improve S.Q. I dont have claims, i only suggest experiments and new simple concepts.... «Thinking is like walking , no need to doubt no need to believe at all...For sure your doubts or beliefs could IMPEDE your walk like your tought process tough.»- Anonymus Smith « You are wrong, when i go to the grocery i must believe the grocery is always there»-Groucho Smith «But Groucho you dont need to believe or doubt an internal perception or an axiom no?»-Harpo Marx |
Yawn .... When someone instead of answering clear arguments "yawn" there is in my experience 2 possibilities only : I am boring when i meet myself an idiot and in this case i understand you perfectly... I myself "yawn" with some people... The problem is the people that make me "yawn" are those who are not creative and have no arguments, and not only dont understand anything but dont wanted to.... I am perhaps one of these people .... Why not? 😁 But wait a minute, i post to you a research article about the law of the first wavefront, i said that it gives to me an idea for a simple experiment that transform the S.Q. in a room ,i even explained in my post the usefulness of blind testing for some people and its not so usefulness in some circonstances and for some people... No answer from you? Then i cannot BE the main idiot myself, at least completely, in this dialogue between you and me... Guess who is idiot, playing mute to the arguments, to some serious science article and a simple experiment by his "yawning" reaction then? And lack of curiosity? Are you afraid? Knowledge is not understanding sorry....It is sometimes even the opposite... An open mind dont confuse the 2.... Good night..... After speaking to you , it is me who yawn now.....But the absence of any thinking reaction from someone could be a sound reason for yawning no ? |
Audiophiles really need to grow up and stop regurgitating this unproven nonsense. Blind testing is the bare minimum. There is absolutely nothing, nada, zip that can be stated as a negative to blind testing. it never occur to you that what is asked by "testing for" by some companies and engineers cannot be the same that is asked for by a listener implementing controls and installing his audio system in his three working dimensions in a long period of time? Yesterday i post to you a research article by 3 japanese scientists about the law of the first wavefront... I dont know if you even read my citation and probably not the article... This reading inspired to me a simple experiment this evening with small Helmholtz devices that improve extraordinarily the sound effect in my room which was already good ....The important fact for my discovery was the precise location of this 3 small devices... I will let you guess where i place them and will say it to you if you read the article.... Question: do you think i need a blind test? or an AB test? to verify my discovery and listening experience... Answer is no.... What is useful for market science, or what can be a tool for engineers working on a simple task is not necessary very useful or always useful for a listener experimenting in a continuous set of experiments for months to improve his system... I dont know if you understand the timbre or the imaging concept....But my own understanding of the imaging concept is better after reading this article of the three japanese physicists and after that i just created a new device improving soundstage and imaging for my speakers...Perhaps it is a proof i read and understand the article, no? Am I deluded? Did i need a blind test? Or a psychiatric test? Or perhaps i am right and you will thanks me to point this article to you if you dare to read it ? By the way i know perfectly well that you know way better than me about all aspect of audio, after all it was your job....But knowing thousand of facts or equations dont replace understanding.... They are plenty of things in audio you dont understand well even if you understand much more than me, it is just not the same things....Be less arrogant about "audiophiles" i will be less arrogant with you....We are all different, and we must listen each others not insulting groups of people, "audiophiles" also must be respected....And all people testing Schuman generators at 10 bucks are not necessarily idiots... Blind test are useful to test ONE small change.... Not an incremental series of changes or big changes....By the way....I dont need blindtest to "see" through my own improving sets of experiments....Someone insisting on blindtest prove to me that he NEVER install rightfully his system and never improve it by himself....Period... Controlling the 3 dimensions of his audio system is not, BOUGHT ,PLUG and PLAY......The customers could be reassured by blindtest, the company too, but i dont need to be reassured , i was experimenting with my system for 2 years to install it... Is it difficult to understand? Or like someone else you know, call me "placebo" plagued and completely in delusion... Who knows ? The world is full of "nuts" after all.... |
Long term evaluation is the standard for audio comparison/evaluation and why blind tests and ABX are often fruitless. You are right on three counts , by science, common sense, and by experience... Some are wrong on the three counts and never will know..... They confuse science with scientism, common sense with prejudice, and experience with habit..... |
By Helmholtz acoustical science which he contributed greatly to found , only a few inches straw can transform a room in an acoustic paradise or in an acoustic hell... A single straw can make a costly amplifier sound bad and a bad one give a better result... Did you know that after installing hundred of systems?
I installed only mine and i learned that.... Do you know the cost of a straw? Peanuts.....Sometimes what is important is not the branded name of the amplifier and his price, but the precise lenght and location of the straw....This is my first lesson in acoustic....It is free😁😊😎
What you call useless "tweaks", useless costly secondary addition to a system are in fact SOMETIMES essential devices making the system able to work at his optimal peak... The only problem is that many are too costly for me... I decided to create mine.... I called them controls over the 3 working embeddings dimensions of a system... I never bought anything, i sell nothing, i created all my devices homemade at no cost...My 500 hundred bucks system fill my room 3-d with imaging, encompassing listener soundstage, natural timbre perception, in 2 main listening positions...Is there better one? Yes, but i will let you guess their price....It is not 500 bucks....It is the embeddings controls not costly electrical design ONLY and MAINLY the road to a good sound....
Am i hallucinated? Am i a liar? For some here deluded by dogmas probably... It is not the PRICE paid who give us good sound , it is the way we are able to control our system, the electrical grid, the vibrations and resonances, and tune the room...
Some people are incredible and even repeat here that our ears must subordinate their power to any objective number they will see on a dial....If they are doctor they call ears impressions " illusions".... And incredibly they listen to their system and call what they hear "good" because the equalizer said so.....
I will mute myself astonished by human voluntary blindness because of sheep walking.....
Dont buy and dont plug and play no more, be creative think and listen .....
Dont upgrade anything before everything is rightfully embedded in his 3 working dimensions and under controls... |
