Re: General Observation


"paul packer" <packer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:43e5543a.6134515@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 11:55:53 -0000, "Paul B" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


When I 1st encountered this debate, I was definitely in favour of DB
testing. I work in electronics, specifically repairing or calibrating test
equipment that often includes audio analysers so the techniques seemed
natural enough. As I read more & more posts, mostly acrimonious as it
happens, it was obvious just how polarised the debate had become. However,
the quality of opposing positions was IMO poorly rendered with those
opposing DB testing coming out with daft conditions such as sighted
testing,
coupled with a wariness of anything scientific in general & those for,
denying the possibility that even their own ears could pick up subtleties
that current testing methods couldn't. It's like expecting distortion
measurements at 1kHz into a resistive load will be the last word. Even
swept
measurements arouse my suspicion. I don't think that measurement is
impossible but doesn't currently exist in any usable form. I also disagree
with the idea that some new force in physics is needed (highly unlikely)
to
explain these differences - this is scientific wool pulling.

Having been fascinated by the whole concept, it dawned on me that DB was
pointless & would never be believed by many people anyway. This was
reinforced when auditioning 2 CD players last September & just how
confusing
even sighted comparisons could be (even comparing the same item twice). I
do
have a lot of sympathy for those desiring testing though. When
manufactures
offer cables in the 100s of £ or $, the term 'snake oil' rises through my
watery depths. The lack of explanation also leads to people like Peter
Belt
coming out with absolutely ludicrous & unsubstantiated "cures" in the UK &
I
sure America has their own wagon traders. The only consolation is that
it's
the rich & foolish getting ripped off the most.

This is basically my stance, only from a non-technical background.
There's merit on both sides, yet both sides put their POV badly. Arnie
and his coterie are risking some sort of Monty Python award for
insisting we all abandon sighted listening as a means of selecting
components; yet at the same time, as you discovered, it IS confusing
comparing even two components, especially in a shop environment. I
suggested a while ago that what subjectivists detect CAN be measured
but not with the current attitudes and equipment

What makes you think your "non-technical" background gives you
a basis for making such a statement?

--and got firmly
stepped on by Arnie, who apparently believes that what subjectivists
claim to hear is delusionary and thus can never be measured. And yet,
those who haven't been entirely overwhelmed by the world of weight and
measure know in their hearts there's much to be detected through
intuition and other unmeasurable means

Lets call this the Harry Potter syndrome... you believe in magic.


--I mean you just know when one
amp makes you swoon and the other puts you to sleep, even if they do
measure identically.

Your lack of technical background is failing you. No two amps will
measure identically... ever. Now if you think have enough comprehensive
info
from datasheets and reviews to claim two amps will have no audible
differences.... you might want to think again.

Forget the snake oil merchants--surely no one in
his right senses would jump on the Peter Belt bandwagon, and I'm with
Arnie and Co. when it comes to decrying exorbitant cables, mats, felt
pens etc. I'm just talking about what most of us have experienced for
ourselves when auditioning (more or less) identically-measuring
components,

Repetitive strawman argument...noted.

and as a consequence can never accept what Arnie would
foist on us, even if it's true (and it probably is) that few of us
could reliably pick our favourite amp from a $150 JVC integrated on a
DBT. Explain that if you can, because I can't.

Using music and your ears... you might not be able to....
but it can be done blind with test equipment after training.

ScottW


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: how good are class D amplifiers?
    ... I should make it clear that I've never made measurements, beyond crude level readings using a handheld 10UKP meter. ... amplifiers with different performance characteristics can sound different. ... If any of the above criteria are not met, and the most obvious are level matching and frequency response differences, then in all probability they will sound different because they are. ... I'm using a Cambridge AV amp at the moment, and I can't detect a difference except at very high sound levels between its built in power amp, and a Rose power amp, and a Behringer power amp. ...
    (uk.rec.audio)
  • Re: PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
    ... You can get awesome piece of vintage equipment for the ... design and construction. ... of the weight in old high end gear is the power transformer and big caps. ... After having $1,200 of Harman Kardon integrated amp die on me after about ten ...
    (rec.audio.tech)
  • Re: hum when biamping -- ground loop or interference?
    ... on one amp, and that should cure your ground loop. ... major fault will cause the AC circuit breakers to blow. ... risk of shock or equipment damage, whether both amps are grounded or ... Military electronics training on Nike Hercules Radar and computer, ...
    (alt.guitar.bass)
  • Re: hum when biamping -- ground loop or interference?
    ... on one amp, and that should cure your ground loop. ... amps are still grounded through the connecting cables. ... equipment that needs to be sunk through teh third wire ground. ...
    (alt.guitar.bass)
  • Re: Ferstler on God
    ... competence at performing audio measurements. ... Because the test equipment used to measure it improved. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)