Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Eeyore wrote:
wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Iain Churches wrote:
wrote in message
Eeyore wrote:
Keith G wrote:

After an hour I can say it's fine/OK and
if it was all I had I wouldn't be too unhappy, but usually when I swap
back
to the valves (haven't got time atm) I find the *improvement* is
instantaneous and reaffirming.

It's called listening fatigue. The break that you give yourself so doing
allows the ear to recover. Now try it the other way round !

Hmmm I read somewhere that the opposite is usually in play. There seems
to be a common bias to prefer the second smaple in an A/B comparison.

Actually it seems that was what I was saying ! I wasn't thinking of an A/B
comparison per se actually but I can well believe it.

Interesting becuase i always thought listener fatigue happened after
extensive listening, that would be the B in an A/B comparison

How about after an hour ?
depends on the system. But I think you missed the point the B will
always follow the A so it will always involve greater listener fatigue

But if there's a short break between A and B ?

The shorter the break the worse it is for B.


Scott

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

APR wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...


wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Iain Churches wrote:
wrote in message
Eeyore wrote:
Keith G wrote:

After an hour I can say it's fine/OK and
if it was all I had I wouldn't be too unhappy, but usually
when I swap
back
to the valves (haven't got time atm) I find the
*improvement* is
instantaneous and reaffirming.

It's called listening fatigue. The break that you give
yourself so doing
allows the ear to recover. Now try it the other way round !

Hmmm I read somewhere that the opposite is usually in play.
There seems
to be a common bias to prefer the second smaple in an A/B
comparison.

Actually it seems that was what I was saying ! I wasn't thinking of
an A/B
comparison per se actually but I can well believe it.

Interesting becuase i always thought listener fatigue happened after
extensive listening, that would be the B in an A/B comparison

How about after an hour ?
depends on the system. But I think you missed the point the B will
always follow the A so it will always involve greater listener fatigue

But if there's a short break between A and B ?

Graham

To solve this problem why don't we do the B sample first???


Good one.



Scott

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...


Iain Churches wrote:
Yes. This is a ploy used in some demos. Also if you can make the second
a little louder, this too will tip the balance.

Yes. I had the trick about the level tweak explained to me by a guy who's
familiar with hi-fi reviewers a couple of weeks ago.

Works every time apparently !

Graham

You can make use of this in studio work too. When you get to
V7 of a mix, and are convinced that V2 is the one, you can play
then back to the client V7 first, and then V2 +2dB. He usually
responds, "Yes you are right, that's the one!"

Iain

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article .com,


Absolutely I believe any real audible difference is scientifically
measuable.

Well, I think people should at least *try* to do this, particularly
where there is some dispute and/or the experiences of different people
contradict. The problem is that they often seem not to want to bother.

I would like to observe that I believe it isn't a trivial matter for
ordinary people to make accurate and meaningful 'scientifice
measurements'

I agree - although:

1) It will depend on the circumstances and what specific 'measurements'
we are talking about

2) I was not necessarily talking about 'measurements'.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

In article . com, Andy
Evans wrote:
I think you may be missinterpreting Jim's intentions here. What may be
frustrating Jim is that people propose scenarios that they will argue
for using intangibles, and will not make any attempt to provide
something tangible to support their arguements. This does tend to cause
some level of frustration in those who have knowledge anad experience,
and are use to

working with facts. APR

I've been having this discourse with Jim for quite some time and I think
I understand his intentions quite well. The basic facts of the case are
that the home audio industry - unlike other arenas like medicine where
stringent tests are required (quite rightly) for products - has almost
universally based its recommendations of products on comparative
listening tests.

Jim wants to take an unusual step for the home audio scene and ask for
scientific proof of the superiority of A over B or the claim that A
sounds better than B.

Another misunderstanding, I'm afraid. What I am primarily asking for is
evidence/details I and others could use to assess a claim or conclusion
someone reports. Not "scientific proof". I was also primarily talking
about what professional reviewers and workers in the field might do,
not just in the "home".

Nor anything to do with "superiority". Just to be able to have details that
would help us distinguish reliable reports and conclusions from incorrect
ones.

He seems oblivious to the reality that this is a highly unusual demand,
but continues to "demand" that people supply him with such data.

Neat use of quotation marks to invent something and attribute it to me. I
have not "demanded" anything of the kind. Just asked for details and
pointed out that if they are not given we may be unable to make sense of a
claim.

As on various other recent occasions, your posting misunderstand and
misreprents both what I have been saying, and what I mean. You then
criticise your own inventions/misrepresentations, not what I actually
said.

[snip other misunderstandings]

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"APR" wrote in message
...


I think you may be missinterpreting Jim's intentions here. What may be
frustrating Jim is that people propose scenarios that they will argue
for using intangibles, and will not make any attempt to provide
something tangible to support their arguements. This does tend to
cause some level of frustration in those who have knowledge anad
experience, and are use to working with facts.


Given that this group is not entirely made up from 'industry pros' (real
or imagined) or 'audio/electronics engineers' (?), there will be
instances where people cannot easily argue their case with *tangibles*
and/or supply meaningful research data. It is up to the 'technical
types' here to find out what point such a person is making without
expecting said 'tangibles', if they wish to take issue with such points
without the frustration you mention.

The problem is that if someone makes a claim but provides no assessable
evidence or details, then may be impossible to assess what they say.
This isn't a matter of how technically capable anyone may be, but of having
no assessable information.

Of course, it is up to the person making the claims if they are willing to
give any evidence/details when asked. Just as it is up to others to decide
if the claim is worth taking seriously or not.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

In article . com,
Andy
Evans wrote:
Who are you to re-interpret his position and then claim he's lying ?
Graham


I'm a psychologist - like it or not, my job is to interpret what people
say or do.

And yet on more than one occasion you have attributed to me things I
neither said nor meant. Those reading recent postings may have seen
a number of exampless where I point out where you do this.

I didn't say Jim was lying, and I wouldn't. He doesn't strike me as the
sort of person who would deliberately lie. I said his attitide was
hypocritical. You can't pretend to be the good guy and then turn on
people without expecting some comeback.

But I can hope that you might read and understand what I wrote, and deal
with that - rather than other ideas which you invent and attribute to me
but which I did not say, nor mean.


You either accept that you're being critical and deal with the
consequences or you do the whole nice guy thing and treat people with
grace and acceptance. I don't fall for all this faux ingenue stuff of
"I'm only asking for scentific proof, and I really don't see what all
the fuss is about".

Therein perhaps lays the key to the problem you have in not understanding
what I write. :-)

BTW I have also never asked for "proof". That is not at all the same thing
as evidence. Do you not understand the distinction? But once again it shows
an example of you inventing something and using using quotation marks to
make it seem as if it was something I said or meant.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
. ..


You can make use of this in studio work too. When you get to
V7 of a mix, and are convinced that V2 is the one, you can play
then back to the client V7 first, and then V2 +2dB. He usually
responds, "Yes you are right, that's the one!"

Iain


Iain, I wouldn't have thought of you as a person to use this form of
psychoacoustic deception ;-)

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

wrote in message
ups.com...

Eeyore wrote:
wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Iain Churches wrote:
wrote in message
Eeyore wrote:
Keith G wrote:

After an hour I can say it's fine/OK and
if it was all I had I wouldn't be too unhappy, but usually
when I swap
back
to the valves (haven't got time atm) I find the
*improvement* is
instantaneous and reaffirming.

It's called listening fatigue. The break that you give
yourself so doing
allows the ear to recover. Now try it the other way round !

Hmmm I read somewhere that the opposite is usually in play.
There seems
to be a common bias to prefer the second smaple in an A/B
comparison.

Actually it seems that was what I was saying ! I wasn't thinking
of an A/B
comparison per se actually but I can well believe it.

Interesting becuase i always thought listener fatigue happened
after
extensive listening, that would be the B in an A/B comparison

How about after an hour ?
depends on the system. But I think you missed the point the B will
always follow the A so it will always involve greater listener fatigue

But if there's a short break between A and B ?

The shorter the break the worse it is for B.

Comparison should be switchable and seamless.
Iain

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

wrote in message
ups.com...

Eeyore wrote:
wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Iain Churches wrote:

wrote in message
Eeyore wrote:
Keith G wrote:

After an hour I can say it's fine/OK and
if it was all I had I wouldn't be too unhappy, but usually
when I swap
back
to the valves (haven't got time atm) I find the *improvement*
is
instantaneous and reaffirming.

It's called listening fatigue. The break that you give yourself
so doing
allows the ear to recover. Now try it the other way round !

Hmmm I read somewhere that the opposite is usually in play. There
seems
to be a common bias to prefer the second smaple in an A/B
comparison.

Actually it seems that was what I was saying ! I wasn't thinking of
an A/B
comparison per se actually but I can well believe it.

Interesting becuase i always thought listener fatigue happened after
extensive listening, that would be the B in an A/B comparison

How about after an hour ?
depends on the system. But I think you missed the point the B will
always follow the A so it will always involve greater listener fatigue

Not necessarily Scott, if one is switching between the two at intervals.
During an A/B most people seem to listen to segments of about 30 secs,
not much more.

Iain