Lots to respond to here, starting with JD: Distortion may not be "all it is," but the testing that's been done indicates that if amps are distinguishable, significant differences in distortion (or FR) will be measurable. No two amps, even of the same design, measure identically, but many of them will sound the same. Burn-in? What burn-in? If the amps are operating within their design parameters, the interconnect won't matter, assuming you're using the same interconnect on both, of course. As for objective listening tests, I haven't discussed what that entails at all, so your assertion that they're flawed is a tad presumptuous, don't you think?
To the more general point that I and others are "hiding behind science" in order to brush aside uncertainties, no one's hiding anything. Science is nothing more than the best available explanation of a phenomenon, based on everything known to date. A better explanation is always welcome. "But there must be something else" is not a better explanation. |
jostler, while i don't disagree w/a lot of what ewe say, there's one glaring ommission from your point of view that ewe fail to acknowledge, and it's simply: yust cuz something can't be quantified w/our present state of technology does *not* mean that it doesn't exist. sure, future advancements in science may prove some tweeks to be placebo-effect, but many will be finally able to be scientifically quantified. in the meantime, yust cuz they can't be quantified, it *doesn't* mean thay don't exist. in the early stages of cd, there were similar pissing-contests about its sound - ie: "bits-is-bits", and if ya count the 1's & 0's correctly it will sound the same. but others heard different, it yust took 'em a while to discover jitter. jitter was mucking up the sound and people could hear it. this phenomenon existed before technology was able to finally discover what it was, & how it was working. that's how science *works*. to believe otherwise, & to refuse to accept something that has yet to be *scientifically proven* is to *really* have yer head in the sand. so far in that perhaps only yer toes are sticking out? ;~) so, w/some tweeks surely snake oil, designed to take our money & work only on the *placebo-effect*, while others really work & have valid - but as yet undiscovered - physical properties behind them, what's an audiophile to do? well, in my case, my ears work yust fine, thank you! :>) regards, doug *beating a dead horse?* sedon |
Doug, don't make me call the S.P.C.A. on you ! No wait, if it's dead I geuss it is o.k. sorry. |
Very simply and well stated Sedond. I think that the advancement of cd is a excellant example. |
Doug: I don't think I ever said that if it can't be quantified, it doesn't exist. No fair exaggerating your opponent's position and then criticizing him for exaggerating! What I said was that so far, no one has been able to demonstrate (as opposed to simply make a claim for) an audible distinction between two amplifiers whose known qualities are similar. When someone does demonstrate such, then we can start to look for the reason why, and that might lead us to a new and better understanding of things than we have at present. Alternatively, we could theorize that a particular factor makes a difference, and then test to see if it really does. But we have to start somewhere. |
hey jostler, ewe don't have to specifically state what i inferred - hey, even when there *is* hard scientific data to explain why a tweek may work, ewe refuse to believe it! yust take the green-edged cd's, for example. re: differing sounds for different amps, it's been proven time & again, repeatedly, by those who can hear. as far as "two amps whose known qualities are similar", well, if they're the same model from the same mfr, yup - i have to agree w/ya! ;~) otherwise, they're *not* similar, & as albert & others have stated, there are so many wariables inwolwed in comparing amps, besides yust the amps, that it's difficult, if not impossible to accurately quantify them objectively, or even subjectively, for that matter. but, sonic differences *do* exist, sometimes they can be scientifically identified, sometimes not. doug *the horse is surely 2-dimensional by now* sedon |
Doug: You got "hard scientific data" on green pens? Spill it, bub. As for amps, listening to two amps and saying, "they sound different" proves nothing. The gold standard is, "Can you consistently identify which of the two is playing, when neither you nor anyone else in the room with you knows, and when their levels are matched to within 0.1 dB?" And I am getting tired of the "those who can hear" crap. All of us can hear. Some of us manage to do it without letting our imaginations run wild. |
re: green pens, albert porter awreddy spilled it - this is documented. why are cd-r mfr's starting to include it? to get an extra 50 cents from the compootah-geeks? re: amps, some folks *have* demonstrated thay can hear which-is-which under controlled testing. i'm tired of the "prove it w/hard scientific data" crap. yure right - some of us can hear. *but*, some of us can hear better than others... doug |
Isn't this argument getting a bit boring? Assumptions set against other assumptions? Tin eared "scientists" against delusional "audiophiles" ? "Dogmatic accountants" against "playfully creative empiricists" ? Ideologies against ideologies? Shouldn't we settle back and agree, that it needs both kinds for the advancement of knowledge ? |
katherina, i agree w/ewe. one of the reasons i like s'phile is, while they may have many faults, they do subjective reviewing w/extremely thorough measurements. i'm all *for* scientific inwestigation, it's yust that i won't dismiss out-of-hand something that has yet to be werified by measurements - isle use my ears & decide for myself. regards, doug s. |
|
Yes we all are getting tierd of the threads, but the issue has not even started to be solved. All I'm looking for is some common ground for wich to proceed. I think Steve and I may be finding it on another thread, and if that can indeed happen, I believe these folks all have helpful insight as long as they don't piss so many of use off that they get booted from the island. |
Doug: There isn't an ounce of hard scientific data in Albert's post on green pens. That's just the clever spiel that sells the snake oil. Hard scientific data would, for example, compare the average number of uncorrected errors per hour of playing time for treated vs. untreated disks. And guess what? There's no difference. You can believe anything you want. Just stop trying to pretend there's even the remotest scientific justification for your belief. |
The only common ground, thanks Katharina by the way, I see evolving, if the "scientists" give us the benefit of the doubt and we are open to experimental verification or falsification of our hypothesising. An approach like that, would do us all a lot of good and the experimental proceedures and the maths involved should be worked out and agreed upon by both sides. The industry won't do it, the mags won't do it for obvious reasons. We the consumers should do it for our own benefit. |
Jostler, an interesting and well reasoned point. Could you give us the source(s) for your "no difference" statement. Not that I doubt you, but I want to read and find out for myself. |
Detlof: I'm afraid I can't give you a source for that. (I'm not a freakin' research library, ya know.) I don't know what the mean time between error correction failures is, but it's a pretty rare occurrence (otherwise you'd be hearing all sorts of ugly sounds every time you played a CD), which suggests that green pens are solving a non-existent problem. |
Katharina: People who "think outside the box" are essential to the advancement of science. But only if their thinking doesn't take us over the same ground we traversed decades ago. One cannot contribute to scientific advancement if one remains willfully ignorant of the current state of the science. You don't have to (and shouldn't) accept current scientific understanding as final and definitive, but how can you be skeptical of it if you don't even know what it is? And too many audiophiles don't. |
Oh that was so informative and helpful Jostler. Thank-you for you scientific conclusions. |
Hello Jostler3, I see your point, but can't you see mine, that, even without "scientific understanding" I'll be skeptical of the opinion of those, who will dismiss as merely psychological or delusional, what I and others hear in difference say, in cables or SS amps? I don't need to study science, to sooner or later see a dogmatist streak in that form of a priori dismissal. I find that unfortunate, because that way, all arguments, sooner than not, get deadlocked with dogmatists here and illusionists there. I think, Detlof is right, we should try to put our "empirical data" much more to the test. Wouldn't the bigger audiophile societies be a right place to offer a platform for this kind of research? Or ist that terribly naive? |
Katharina: Of course it's hard to believe a difference might just be in our heads when it seems so "huge." And some of those perceived differences are indeed the result of real sonic differences, so we can't dismiss such claims out of hand. I think audio societies would be a great forum for experimenting with this sort of thing, though some of them may well feel, like some individual audiophiles, that they have a stake in denying the validity of any form of objective testing. In the meantime, it wouldn't hurt anyone here (myself not excluded) to learn a little more about the experimentation that's already been done in this field. |
Jostler3@hotmail.com, I have a question, and it is not intended to be a jab at you. You seem to like to quote data, so for the record, what equipment do you use in your own system. Do you have a substantial investment, making an effort to retrieve all the music possible? Or do you have a very simple system? |
|
It seems that anything in audio that Jostler3 cannot measure he just relagates to the junkheap of "placebo effect". Well, IMHO, that's not rational, and it's not science. Cheers. Craig. |
Hi Craig, in the light of reading Jostler3's response to Katharina's post, what you say about him simply does not meet the facts. Sometimes it seems to me, that we on our side of the fence are just as prone to generalise in exactly the same irresponsible fashion as we accuse our adversaries of. Please lets all stay rational ( and that goes for me too). |
Sorry Detlof,I can't agree at all in this instance.It's the body of his "work" that defines this fellow.
A single post isn't going to change my opinion of his tactics nor credibility.Don't you find it significant that the tenor of his posts changes only now?
Best,
Ken |
Ken, maybe he lives and learns, like -hopefully - all of us. |
Polemics aside, aren't many of us thankful for tweaks suggested by others? I am, I ENJOY trying them out and dare humbly submit that many work... (i dare'nt say all & get kicked out of the site).
Regarding science vs voodoo: Jostler3, have you considered that appropriate research COULD provide scientific explanation to alleged differences in sound --- what? all that money for the sake of a few audiophiles??? ...one example I know about: PCords, mentioned in an earlier post. A few years ago, Public Hospitals in France went on-line, and started experimenting in telesurgery. They started raising hell about signals alteration and losses relating to the cabling that linked receiving ends, further claiming that something was wrong with the PPCs power supply and related cabling. The french PPC first refused responsibility claiming ITS networks checked out fine...but as pressure continued (no hi-end alchemists here), they put a team of researchers on the case. Bingo! they discovered that passive (and active) conductors do influence the signal even at low voltage /wattage due to losses related to the cabling surface (can't give you more sci spec, though. I just read the article).
And this is a true story. |
I think we have rat holed on Jostler3 enough. The Tice clock was the perfect example. I would offer up the "two dimes and quarter on the front corner of the speaker tweak" as being just as worthless as a sound improvement as the Tice Clock, but a hell of a lot cheaper to implement. People that heard that difference must of had really good hearing. I seem to recall something about safety pins in certain corners of your speaker's fabric but can't remember the name of it. Do you have others? Now I'll stray off the topic to add another thread topic and here is the preview. I think certain tools which do produce tweak results sounding better are extremely benificiencial but needless expensive for one person to buy. For instance, some friends and I share certain items fluxbusters, winds stylist gauge, mobies, TT strobe speed checkers even green pens. |
Sorry,
I remember auditioning the Tice clock and quite frankly, it had an effect not unlike what can be had currently by inserting one or 2 Audioprism Quietline passive shunt filters into the mains circuit(ie- slightly quieter background, increased depth, and somewhat improved tonal contrasts/colours).
I have a friend that purchased one back then who still swears by it and has demonstrated its effect to me and others on several occassions.
I feel it received the bad reputation mostly due to the hype surrounding its release and accusations of charlatanism by sceptics like our dear Jostler.Recall that it came out just as the effects of line conditioning and cable were still in their infancy.
The effect was small and of questionable dollar to results value but nontheless an audible one.
There were shortly afterwards rumours being spread that the identical looking (black rather than white case) RS clock from which Tice used as the vehicle for whatever was done inside had a similar effect.
I also tried the RS unit and heard no effect whatsoever.Tice's reputation was nearly destroyed by folks who would not even try to audition or hear for themselves because of their narrow minded biases yet would be quite vocal and malicious in their slander.
To this day I do not know what Tice's TPT is and do not own Tice products but I do not question that the Tice clock actually did something, whether the *promotion* of it was fanciful advertising, my perception that the amount charged was out of line with its benefit or that the disturbing concept of a cheap alarm clock making sonic improvements was just too bizarre to accept.
Best,
Ken |
I had a similar experience as Ken, I too was able to hear an improvement with the Tice Clock. Later on, I replaced the clock with an 8 pack of Quiet Line filters from Audioprism for less money, and better results. I really don't think the effect of the clock or the Audioprism filters are any more bizarre than being able to hear shutting off the fluorescent display on certain CD transports, or unplugging some pieces of electronics that have a standby circuit and/or a remote control. All electrical devices plugged into power outlets cause noise to some degree, whether it is clearly and distinctly audible, varies drastically from system to system. Whatever was in the Tice clock effected the noise on the AC line, much like the Audioprism shunt filters. The simple reason the clock only had to be in the same room, was that in a typical home, there are multiple devices sharing various outlets in the room. The clock did not "send out" any magic, it effected the noise on the electrical service by being plugged directly into the AC. Now for something that I found difficult to believe. I recently visited a high end manufacturer, and in his sound room was a black box, about the size of two shoe boxes, plugged into the wall by a large AC cable. I ask what it did, and the answer was that it drastically reduced the electric bill. This box somehow causes the meter to read more in favor of the customer, even though it consumed power of its own. This to me is just as bizarre as the clock, but knowing this guy, I am certain the story is true. He says it amounts to over $150.00 savings a month, and since the readings are done by the power company, I'm certain that it is not his imagination at work. |
I remember borrowing a Tice clock many years ago after having read Michael Fremer's rave review in TAS. I found the whole thing absolutely crazy and did not believe a word of it. To my surprise I did percieve, with the thing plugged in, exactly what was mentioned above: A better soundstage and tad more silence in the background. And you know, what I decided then: I truly prefered not to believe my ears, put it away as an audiosuggestion, ignored the postive comments of my female companion and gave the clock back. So here ideology won over empiricism in the sense, what CANNOT be real, simply IS not real. No, you don't have to pray to the audiogods for me. I've learnt a thing or two in the meantime. But I thought I'll bring this post, because I feel that many of the "scientists" here possibly still function the way I did then, you know: possibly golden eared, but ideologically tinned over. |
hey albert, i want info on the black-box yer mfr-friend uses. thanks, doug s. ps - i unnerstand that tice cryogenically treated his *clock*, & currently uses cryogenics on his present products. mike vansevers is also a firm believer in cryogenics; i believe there are others out there who also use it. if i can sweet-talk some dr's here at the nih to let me use their -90f freezers, i may czech it out... |
|
Genetics. A percentage of the population is born with perfect pitch. Yet another percentage is clueless about grokking music. A subset of those end up as uptight, pedantic, republican, textbook-only engineers ( as opposed to kewl geeks :) who can't _feel_ music. Every seven seconds a baby is born without soul. Won't you please give generously and help those with this sad affliction.... |
