Keith G wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Rob" wrote in message


Yes, I agree. DBT is not a trivial thing though, and
surprisingly (to me) there doesn't seem to have been many
rigorous tests to underpin the 'little if any difference'
thesis.
What would constitute many?

I've done DBTs of several dozen hi fi power amps, and found near-total
support for the "little if any difference" thesis.


Sure, of course - and it would be stunning if it weren't for the fact
that, in a domestic environment, most people couldn't tell the
difference between two pieces of kit after a couple of goes back and
forth - even if *they* were making the switches fully sighted!!


Indeed - you've/I've caught me out on more than one occasion :-)

There's no easy way to explain the whole thing - I just find listening
to music a very different experience to listening to electrical equipment.

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:

I simply don't get this. I've been using 5 SS amps of late (Quad 405,
Rose power amp, Cambridge AV, Behringer A500, and that within a Pure
mini system), as well as others on and off over the years, and I feel
each has 'a sound of its own'.

The problems with the above are as follows:


[snip]

2) Yet when people do level-matched comparisons and avoid obvious
snags like clipping *and* have only the sound to rely upon, the result
is often that they can't reliably tell one amp from another.

FWIW A number of tests have also shown that people tend to hear
'differences' even when the same system is used in the same way.


Yes, I agree. DBT is not a trivial thing though,

I was not specifically referring to DBT methods. Just to ones which have
sensible test conditions - e.g. level matched - and where the listener was
having to rely upon the sounds alone.


and surprisingly (to me) there doesn't seem to have been many rigorous
tests to underpin the 'little if any difference' thesis.

You would need to clarify what you mean as I am unsure of the point you are
making.

The situation as I understand it is that appropriately performed tests
often show no sign of the listener being able to distiguish. In some cases
they do throw up various effects which may be due to methodology flaws. The
tests I have in mind were not to see if the differences were 'little', just
to see if those listening could actually show any relable signs of being
able to hear *any* audible differences.

I am therefore unsure what purpose the tests you refer to would have. Is it
to simply establish that two units *do* produce different results at a
level so small as to be inaudible? If so, I'd suspect that simple
measurements would confirm that differences exist in many cases. Just that
people show no sign of being able to hear them when tested.

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

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Rob" wrote in message


Yes, I agree. DBT is not a trivial thing though, and
surprisingly (to me) there doesn't seem to have been
many rigorous tests to underpin the 'little if any
difference' thesis.

What would constitute many?

I've done DBTs of several dozen hi fi power amps, and
found near-total support for the "little if any
difference" thesis.


Sure, of course - and it would be stunning if it weren't
for the fact that, in a domestic environment, most people
couldn't tell the difference between two pieces of kit
after a couple of goes back and forth - even if *they*
were making the switches fully sighted!!

Yet another irrelevant statement from a member of the "great unwashed". The
relevance problem here is that the evaluations I'm talking about have been
vastly more extensive than "a couple of goes back and forth".

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:


Another snag is that in the case of audio there may be many thousands
of different 'pictures' to 'view' and you might like some 'distorted'
by a specific 'glass', but other 'distorted' in other ways. So perhaps
this is simply another attempt at analogy that falls apart once you
try to use it at more that a trivial level. ;-


May well. My point was to emphasise that 'distortion' is a concept,

The word is actually used in audio in at least two ways.

One is referring to a property of a system which is rooted in a suitable
form of non-linerarily and thus causes a non-linear relationship between
the input and output of a system/unit.

The other is to the consequential alterations caused by the above property.

The results may be both measurable and audible, depending on the details.

Is that simply a 'concept'? I would have regarded it as a description of
something which arises in physical reality. 'Concept' seems to me to be a
term which sounds more like it was an abstract idea.


and not a single or pejorative (in the context of valves discussions
say) fact.

Pejorative would be 'in the ear of the belistener' I guess. :-)

The reality, though, is that if the output has a nonlinear relation to the
input then it is a 'fact' that the result is being distorted according to
the relevant definitions. This can be measured, and may be audible,
depending on circumstances.

Whether someone likes or dislikes (or can even tell the difference) the
results is up to them. Of course, I'd like them to be able to make an
'informed' choice - hence my previous comments. But that isn't
compulsory... ;-

More generally...

The problem with wilful ignorance is that it gives you no guide if you
ever need to change anything. Similarly, it is no help to anyone else
who is interested in the results you got. Nor does it tell anyone if
what is claimed is for the reasons claimed, or is even real rather
than delusional.

I suppose I am old-fashioned. I prefer education and understanding to
ignorance, and I prefer views based on reliable evidence. Indeed, I
seem to get a lot of enjoyment and satisfaction out of learning,
understanding, etc. My experience thus far is that this has helped me
to design/choose/use equipment to allow me to enjoy recorded and
broadcast music. I have also repeatedly found that ideas presented in
claims by people have no foundations, so would probably have wasted my
time and impeded my being able to get to where I have in terms of
enjoying the results if I hadn't had the old-fashioned approach of
using measurements, understanding, etc, to try and find my way though
the claims. In my experience this has complimented listening very well.

So, no, I'm afraid I am not personally a great fan of wilful ignorance
as a policy of choice.


That's fine in the main, of course - it's your world and it suits you
(and probably many others). I'm not so happy, though, with lumping
enthusiastic commentary and enquiring minds in with 'wilful ignorance',
which I'm afraid is how I read the essence of what you seem to be saying.

Why are you assuing that enthusiam and enquiry mean wilifil ignorance? I'd
have said the exact opposite. I'm afraid that you are reading into what I
wrote something that I neither said not meant.

An 'enquiring mind' would seek to *understand* what they experience - and
also seek to check if their impressions or ideas have any reliability or
are errors. Enthusiam is one of the things that can drive this.

FWIW The main reason I've spent decades studying, building, testing, etc,
audio amplifiers and other kit is that I am largely driven by my enthusiasm
for the results - being able to enjoy the music. My point, therefore, was
that measurements, etc, are very valuable (if you understand them), and
allow you to make more progress.

Being able to make measurements and analyse designs, etc, does not prevent
you from also listening to the results. There is no inherent dichotomy
here. If there is a problem it is in the area I referred to.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message

In article ,
Keith G wrote:

Sure, of course - and it would be stunning if it weren't
for the fact that, in a domestic environment, most
people couldn't tell the difference between two pieces
of kit after a couple of goes back and forth - even if
*they* were making the switches fully sighted!!

That's a remarkable change of tune from you?

Not at all - Keith is sneering down his nose at the quality and sincerity of
such the evaluations I was talking about. Since they don't agree with his
prejudices, they couldn't have been any good.

"Rob" wrote in message

Keith G wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Rob" wrote in message


Yes, I agree. DBT is not a trivial thing though, and
surprisingly (to me) there doesn't seem to have been
many rigorous tests to underpin the 'little if any
difference' thesis.
What would constitute many?

I've done DBTs of several dozen hi fi power amps, and
found near-total support for the "little if any
difference" thesis.


Sure, of course - and it would be stunning if it weren't
for the fact that, in a domestic environment, most
people couldn't tell the difference between two pieces
of kit after a couple of goes back and forth - even if
*they* were making the switches fully sighted!!

Indeed - you've/I've caught me out on more than one
occasion :-)
There's no easy way to explain the whole thing

Speaks to the knowlege, intelligence, and expressive powers of the person
doing the explaining.

I just find listening to music a very different experience to listening
to
electrical equipment.

So how do you listen to electrical equipment without playing music through
it?

"Rob" wrote in message



Yes, we've done this, and I set out a few problems I had
with your methodology and method.


I've reviewed the last 100 or so google summaries of your posts here, and
can't find any such thing. Can you give me a range of dates or something?

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Sure, of course - and it would be stunning if it weren't
for the fact that, in a domestic environment, most
people couldn't tell the difference between two pieces
of kit after a couple of goes back and forth - even if
*they* were making the switches fully sighted!!

That's a remarkable change of tune from you?

Not at all - Keith is sneering down his nose at the quality and
sincerity of such the evaluations I was talking about. Since they don't
agree with his prejudices, they couldn't have been any good.

Still an about face. Everyone who hears *his* system - dustman to doctor -
immediately goes home and throws out their Krell, begging Keith for one of
his SET amps. Or have I read him wrong?

--
*Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message


Yes, we've done this, and I set out a few problems I had
with your methodology and method.


I've reviewed the last 100 or so google summaries of your posts here, and
can't find any such thing. Can you give me a range of dates or something?


6 Nov 06 - here's a snippet (I keep changing my email 'code' for
reasons unknown):

Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:

What exactly is the ontological and epistemological
basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have
to be absolutely clear on these points to accept
what you say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights.
I've seen this technique used many times before and
I'm not playing.

Well, it's your ball :-)

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message

Keith G wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Rob" wrote in message


Yes, I agree. DBT is not a trivial thing though, and
surprisingly (to me) there doesn't seem to have been
many rigorous tests to underpin the 'little if any
difference' thesis.
What would constitute many?

I've done DBTs of several dozen hi fi power amps, and
found near-total support for the "little if any
difference" thesis.

Sure, of course - and it would be stunning if it weren't
for the fact that, in a domestic environment, most
people couldn't tell the difference between two pieces
of kit after a couple of goes back and forth - even if
*they* were making the switches fully sighted!!
Indeed - you've/I've caught me out on more than one
occasion :-)
There's no easy way to explain the whole thing

Speaks to the knowlege, intelligence, and expressive powers of the person
doing the explaining.


V. clever :-)

I just find listening to music a very different experience to listening
to
electrical equipment.

So how do you listen to electrical equipment without playing music through
it?


V. clever indeed! I don't know - innate gift?