On Nov 4, 6:52 am, Patrick Turner wrote:

Musicians do not necessarily have any special hearing abilities.

Yes, they do: they have trained perception. They listen consciously.
Non-audiophiles from the general population cannot even hear the
difference between a boombox played through good speakers and a Class
A PP tube amp played through the same speakers. To them it is all
"nice", useless for tests.

If I could find enough experienced audiophiles -- defined as having
trained their own aural perception -- available on a regular basis, I
would use them instead. it was just easier in my particular
circumstances to find as many classical musicians as required.

It should also be observed that most audiophiles talk big about their
golden ears but in blind tests have poor discrimination, so that you
first require tests to sort out the good listeners. That shocked me;
for a while I wondered if the meterheads weren't right, if vanishing
THD numbers aren't the holy grail after all... But you don't want to
hear about the anguish of an open mind.

For the innocent: The point of listening tests isn't to discover which
amp or topology is "better": I already know from comparison with years
in the concert halls which kinds of amps and which topologies I prefer
(Class A1 triodes or trioded pentodes in PP with ESL, and ditto in SET
with horns). The point of tests is to determine why these topologies
affect the emotions differently; psycho-acoustics is probably the last
frontier in audio-electronics.

Andre Jute
"I was at a board meeting for the LA Chapter of the Audio Engineering
Society last night on XM Satellite radio audio and data transmission.
Sadly, we missed you there, and at the SMPTE and Acoustical Society
recent meetings as well. Everyone was asking, 'Where is that wonderful
Andre Jute? The world just doesn't rotate without him...'" -- John
Mayberry, Emmaco

Andre Jute wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:

Musicians do not necessarily have any special hearing abilities.

Yes, they do: they have trained perception. They listen consciously.
Non-audiophiles from the general population cannot even hear the
difference between a boombox played through good speakers and a Class
A PP tube amp played through the same speakers. To them it is all
"nice", useless for tests.

The same holds true for plenty of musicians too. The idea that ALL musicians
have wonderfully critical hearing is just plain wrong. And those that do have
good critical hearing may not be listening for the audible cues a technical
person will be.

Graham

Andre Jute wrote:

On Nov 4, 6:52 am, Patrick Turner wrote:

Musicians do not necessarily have any special hearing abilities.

Yes, they do: they have trained perception. They listen consciously.
Non-audiophiles from the general population cannot even hear the
difference between a boombox played through good speakers and a Class
A PP tube amp played through the same speakers. To them it is all
"nice", useless for tests.

Jeezzuuus! More than half the musos I know are dumb****s.

A few might have benefitted from being trained musically,
but the majority are not.

The majority are self taught rock/jaz musos, and only a real minority
score well in music reproduction examination tests.



If I could find enough experienced audiophiles -- defined as having
trained their own aural perception -- available on a regular basis, I
would use them instead. it was just easier in my particular
circumstances to find as many classical musicians as required.

The serious audio clubs in Australia such as the Melbourne Audio Club,
MAC,
and Audiophile Society of NSW, ASON contain enough practised and
experienced ppl whose
opinion can be considered seriously when testing AB set ups in front of
them.
I was a member of ASON for some years and demoed my gear several times
and AB'd it in "sound offs" to see what sounded better.

The results embarrassed the guy who believed in triodes with no GNFB.


It should also be observed that most audiophiles talk big about their
golden ears but in blind tests have poor discrimination, so that you
first require tests to sort out the good listeners.

Yes, but there were enough good ears in the club to get as good an idea
about the audio quality as you'd ever want.


That shocked me;
for a while I wondered if the meterheads weren't right, if vanishing
THD numbers aren't the holy grail after all... But you don't want to
hear about the anguish of an open mind.

ASON club members did not hear anything special with gear that had
10 times or lower measured THD/IMD than the tube gear I demoed.

About 1/2 used SS, 1/2 used tube gear. Speakers varied from horns,
generally HQ dynamics, and some ESL.

Sources of the club were also better than average.


For the innocent: The point of listening tests isn't to discover which
amp or topology is "better": I already know from comparison with years
in the concert halls which kinds of amps and which topologies I prefer
(Class A1 triodes or trioded pentodes in PP with ESL, and ditto in SET
with horns). The point of tests is to determine why these topologies
affect the emotions differently; psycho-acoustics is probably the last
frontier in audio-electronics.


Better usually means sounds better to audiophiles, many of whom couldn't
care a hoot about the measurements.
Better to an engineer means it measures better, and engineers
often are dull emotionally, and incapable of listening to music at all.

A 100 times betterment in measurements usually does NOT give a 100 time
betterment in sound quality.

Patrick Turner.




Andre Jute
"I was at a board meeting for the LA Chapter of the Audio Engineering
Society last night on XM Satellite radio audio and data transmission.
Sadly, we missed you there, and at the SMPTE and Acoustical Society
recent meetings as well. Everyone was asking, 'Where is that wonderful
Andre Jute? The world just doesn't rotate without him...'" -- John
Mayberry, Emmaco

On Nov 4, 4:41 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Patrick Turner wrote:

Musicians do not necessarily have any special hearing abilities.

Yes, they do: they have trained perception. They listen consciously.
Non-audiophiles from the general population cannot even hear the
difference between a boombox played through good speakers and a Class
A PP tube amp played through the same speakers. To them it is all
"nice", useless for tests.

The same holds true for plenty of musicians too. The idea that ALL musicians
have wonderfully critical hearing is just plain wrong.

What is your problem, Poopie? Where did I say I was talking about "ALL
musicians". Why don't you learn to read? I specifically said, in the
section of my post you stupidly snipped: "it was just easier in my
particular circumstances to find as many classical musicians as
required."

And those that do have
good critical hearing may not be listening for the audible cues a technical
person will be.

You're a moron, Poopie. Where did I say anything about "technical
persons"? In fact, I specified psycho-acoustic reasons in the part of
my post you stupidly snipped:
"For the innocent: The point of listening tests isn't to discover
which
amp or topology is "better": I already know from comparison with years
in the concert halls which kinds of amps and which topologies I prefer
(Class A1 triodes or trioded pentodes in PP with ESL, and ditto in SET
with horns). The point of tests is to determine why these topologies
affect the emotions differently; psycho-acoustics is probably the last
frontier in audio-electronics."

Graham

If you attention span is shorter than your dick, Poopie, stay out of
my threads. They aren't suitable for soundbiters and idiots.

Andre Jute
"I was at a board meeting for the LA Chapter of the Audio Engineering
Society last night on XM Satellite radio audio and data transmission.
Sadly, we missed you there, and at the SMPTE and Acoustical Society
recent meetings as well. Everyone was asking, 'Where is that wonderful
Andre Jute? The world just doesn't rotate without him...'" -- John
Mayberry, Emmaco

On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, Patrick Turner wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

On Nov 4, 6:52 am, Patrick Turner wrote:

Musicians do not necessarily have any special hearing abilities.

Yes, they do: they have trained perception. They listen consciously.
Non-audiophiles from the general population cannot even hear the
difference between a boombox played through good speakers and a Class
A PP tube amp played through the same speakers. To them it is all
"nice", useless for tests.

Jeezzuuus! More than half the musos I know are dumb****s.

Of course they are. They play jazz which is by definition not music or
have deafened themselves with amplified guitars. You want to acquaint
yourself with a better class of musician.

A few might have benefitted from being trained musically,
but the majority are not.

All of those in my listening groups had at least ten years of formal
musical training, many or even most since they first started started
school or even before.

The majority are self taught rock/jaz musos, and only a real minority
score well in music reproduction examination tests.

Yech. These are not musicians, Patrick, they are makers of noise.

If I could find enough experienced audiophiles -- defined as having
trained their own aural perception -- available on a regular basis, I
would use them instead. it was just easier in my particular
circumstances to find as many classical musicians as required.

The serious audio clubs in Australia such as the Melbourne Audio Club,
MAC,
and Audiophile Society of NSW, ASON contain enough practised and
experienced ppl whose
opinion can be considered seriously when testing AB set ups in front of
them.
I was a member of ASON for some years and demoed my gear several times
and AB'd it in "sound offs" to see what sounded better.

You're lucky. The local Gramophone Club, the night I went, played old
records on scratchy equipment; they are not audiophiles but music
lovers. Good for them, I say, but useless for my purposes.

The results embarrassed the guy who believed in triodes with no GNFB.

It should also be observed that most audiophiles talk big about their
golden ears but in blind tests have poor discrimination, so that you
first require tests to sort out the good listeners.

Yes, but there were enough good ears in the club to get as good an idea
about the audio quality as you'd ever want.

Melbourne, just by itself, has more people in it than all of Ireland.
It is a lot easier to put together experienced audiophiles there than
here.

That shocked me;
for a while I wondered if the meterheads weren't right, if vanishing
THD numbers aren't the holy grail after all... But you don't want to
hear about the anguish of an open mind.

ASON club members did not hear anything special with gear that had
10 times or lower measured THD/IMD than the tube gear I demoed.

About 1/2 used SS, 1/2 used tube gear. Speakers varied from horns,
generally HQ dynamics, and some ESL.

Sources of the club were also better than average.

And there you have it: serious people, serious gear, experienced ears.

For the innocent: The point of listening tests isn't to discover which
amp or topology is "better": I already know from comparison with years
in the concert halls which kinds of amps and which topologies I prefer
(Class A1 triodes or trioded pentodes in PP with ESL, and ditto in SET
with horns). The point of tests is to determine why these topologies
affect the emotions differently; psycho-acoustics is probably the last
frontier in audio-electronics.

Better usually means sounds better to audiophiles, many of whom couldn't
care a hoot about the measurements.
Better to an engineer means it measures better, and engineers
often are dull emotionally, and incapable of listening to music at all.

"Engineers" aren't my problem, except when they're dumb enough to
think they can tell me my business. I'm interested in the sources of
emotion. Or, as an assistant at one test told a panel member, "Andre
is after the effect of the affect." Poor fellow thought the pretty
bird was swearing at him!

A 100 times betterment in measurements usually does NOT give a 100 time
betterment in sound quality.

Gee, now you tell me, after I wasted my youth chasing AC balance...

Patrick Turner.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Nov 4, 6:52 am, Patrick Turner wrote:

Musicians do not necessarily have any special hearing abilities.

They are also not immune to hearing damage, even occupationally-related.

Yes, they do: they have trained perception.

But they are not unique in that regard.

Also, what they listen for is not necessarily the same as what you listen
for when you listen for differences between audio products.

They listen consciously.

That's hardly unique to musicians.

Non-audiophiles from the general population cannot even hear the
difference between a boombox played through good speakers and a Class
A PP tube amp played through the same speakers.

Boomboxes rarely if ever have speaker outputs, so this is a nonsense
statement.

To them it is all "nice", useless for tests.

I've done enough listening tests with non-audiophiles and non-musicans to be
careful about putting them all down.

If I could find enough experienced audiophiles -- defined as having
trained their own aural perception -- available on a regular basis, I
would use them instead.

Been there done that. BTW, one good way for audiophiles to train their
perceptions is to spend some time actually listening for differences that
are known to be audible, but perhaps neer the margin of audibility.

it was just easier in my particular
circumstances to find as many classical musicians as required.

I've definately worked with classical musicans with serious ear damage.
While they generally have good acuity when it comes to tone and timing,
there's a lot that goes wrong in audio that is independent of that.

It should also be observed that most audiophiles talk big about their
golden ears but in blind tests have poor discrimination, so that you
first require tests to sort out the good listeners.

It is true that the high end audio industry pretty much trains audiophiles
to have a very optimistic view of their hearing acuity.

That shocked me;
for a while I wondered if the meterheads weren't right, if vanishing
THD numbers aren't the holy grail after all... But you don't want to
hear about the anguish of an open mind.

No danger of hearing about the anguish of an open mind from Jute, his
sockpuppets, and his fellow-travelers.

For the innocent: The point of listening tests isn't to discover which
amp or topology is "better": I already know from comparison with years
in the concert halls which kinds of amps and which topologies I prefer
(Class A1 triodes or trioded pentodes in PP with ESL, and ditto in SET
with horns).

Thanks for admitting that you already know the right answers, Jute.

The point of tests is to determine why these topologies
affect the emotions differently; psycho-acoustics is probably the last
frontier in audio-electronics.

So far I have yet to see a credible statement about psychoacoustics from
you, Jute.

Andre Jute
"I was at a board meeting for the LA Chapter of the Audio Engineering
Society last night on XM Satellite radio audio and data transmission.
Sadly, we missed you there, and at the SMPTE and Acoustical Society
recent meetings as well. Everyone was asking, 'Where is that wonderful
Andre Jute? The world just doesn't rotate without him...'" -- John
Mayberry, Emmaco

More likely, they were asking why XP used to sound so much better, but now
generally sounds like crap. The answer is bandwidth and what happens to
audio when you try to route twice as many channels through the same
bandwidth.

Arny Krueger wrote:



I've definately worked with classical musicans with serious ear damage.
While they generally have good acuity when it comes to tone and timing,
there's a lot that goes wrong in audio that is independent of that.



While not a classical musician, one of the members of the band "The Who"
had warned people that they should avoid cranking their amps up high
while drunk as a skunk, or else they'll blow their ears out like he did.

So he of "the Who" would not be one "Who is useful for listening tests?"
:-)
(ducking, running for cover)
:-)