A good article about the human ear and tubes (1 Viewer)

[Michael R Price]

How many times have we given up on arguing and asked for beer so far in this thread?

 

[Yogi]

But we have failed everytime. Can't we all agree to disagree for once.

 

[Chu Gai]

I'm not sure right now on what we're disagreeing about!

 

[Mary M S]

Specs...nope...relevant measurements good point, very poor choice of wording on my part. What I was trying to say (with my stuck on violens) theme was my supision that the parementers and rules behind the measurements are constanly evolving with the further elevolution and understanding of human auditory capablitis and the advent of technology advances which will continune (I hope) to utterly rewrite the parameters of what and how a thing can be measured. Because I believe firmly in the possiblity of these advances, I have no reason to disbelieve people when they feel firmly they hear something difficult for them to document.

behoove one Mary to expend a bit of effort to understand just what is known about human hearing
it most certainly would and I hope to spend time in the arena as I am lamentably lacking. My greatest sorrow, (no photographic memory to speed the process of all the things I’d like to try and understand) up. I need clones to get round to it all!

For how long can you listen and have your brain recall
Well if your speaking of how long my cortex has excitatory activity, - One experiment I read documented lifetime reaction in the order of 100 ms for fast decaying sustained response and the order of 1 sec for lifetime of inhibitory effects after a 2-sec binaurally presented stimulus containing N tones. Affecting both hemispheres with the maximal Nim field over the fronto-temproal area for that length of time.

If your talking about how long I retain memory of what I hear acoustically, well I think after contemplating the length of neural excitement when I consider the above test results, I sadly conclude, - I have not a chance in Hell and should just give up and buy Bose, cause my memory’s probably shorter than duration of brain excitation, and there’s a high probability I can’t ever accurately remember what I just heard in under 5 sec.

Seriously, I have already proved to myself that I am capable with time and thought of building up a mental memory of sound detail regarding a unit, (overbuilding rather) which was not sustanined when comparing the items in question to each other in very short timeframe. Taught myself to be a little more careful after this in how definitive I am in what I hear without returning to the baseline (the units compared) with greater frequency.

Gee whiz, - what all am I saying! Bottomline. I just think the tooob guys could be right they hear something!

and asked for beer so far in this thread any vodka tonic in the fridge? It's not hot enough for beer here.

 

[Steve_AS]

My question for all debaters on subjects surrounding [cold Vs warm] [tube Vs SS] [golden ears Vs damaged and challenged by just one too many Rock concerts]
Is Science really the great leveler for those of us modern enough to forgo all outdated superstitions, opinions from great soloist’s, and assorted musicians and audiophiles and rely now soley upon current techniques of modern science including the statisticaly correct analysis of double blinds? Have we arrived at an irrefutable moment in modern times that specs = performance for those enlightened and sophisticated enough to relax or eliminate their reliance upon outmoded personal subjective opinion.

The lovely thing about DBTs for spec-skeptics (and certainly manufacterer's specs are not always to be taken at face value) is that there are no 'specs' necessarily involved. It's simply a listening test where known *perceptual* biases have been taken into account. You don't have to know anything beforehand about the 'specs' of the devices being compared. Of course, if a DBT returns a positive result, the intrepid investigator might well try to find out the cause of the perceived difference by measuring their performance objectively.


People are often quick to ascribe a *reason* for something they perceive...but is the reason they give likely to be correct? An expert in one field is not necessarily an expert in another that may 'seem' related to those outside both fields. (That's why one should be on guard, for example, when a physicist offers a critique of evolution, or a psychiatrist expostulates on history -- to the public it may seem that an egghead is an egghead, but it's not that simple.)

So as regards the great soloists and their authority re: warmed-up violins: musicians are not inherently exempt from expectation/confirmation bias. And it cannot be assumed that they are familiar with the literature on psychoacoustics and human perception of audible difference, and the evidence that has accumulated over many decades concerning the existence of perceptual biases. That's not their job, after all. Their job is to play music. So when they claim that the violin itself has to 'warm up' after not having been played, that *might* be true, but how do we know? Can they can provide some sort of plausible reason why that might be true? Or does the likelihood remains that it's *they* who are 'warming up' to the sound of the violin? (The analog in audiophilia is the idea of 'breaking in' speakers, cables, amps, etc) It is not enough to state the truism, 'science doesn't know everything'...you have to admit that subjective evaluation is fraught with error too. But of the two, science is concerned with distinguishing error and fact -- it is inherently self-correcting over time. Subjective evaluation isn't. In that sense -- as a means for accurately modelling the natural world -- science *is* the great leveller.

 

[Steve_AS]

Mary wrote:

Because I believe firmly in the possiblity of these advances, I have no reason to disbelieve people when they feel firmly they hear something difficult for them to document.

You have faith in the possibility of new knowledge, which is admirable and at the core of science also, but why do you discount *existing* knowledge concerning the human propensity towards perceptual bias? What we *don't* know is one side of the equation, and what we *do* know is the other. It's quite extensice, that body of knowledge. What evidence do you have that it's faulty or can be safely ignored?

 

[Steve_AS]

Yogi, might I inquire why you have set such admirably high standards for controlled comparisons, but are not similarly critical of the typical sighted audiophile review or comparison report? Do you honestly believe that an experiment such as that reporeted by TAG McL. is no more rigorous or conclusive or informative than a sighted comparison?

As regards supposedly vastly different amps, I would indeed point you to Tom Nousaine's amp comparisons. I'd be fascinated to see his response to your claim that they are 'silly garbage'. From what I have read they hardly seem silly. He frequents rec.audio.high-end, you could post your critiques there.

 

[Steve_AS]

How many times have we given up on arguing and asked for beer so far in this thread?

My impression is that some here may have been hitting the beer *before* posting.

 

[Yogi]

I never have faith in typical audiophile reviews rife with exotic adjectives as 'liquid midrange', 'shimmering highs' etc etc. I believe my ears and as long as I can hear I dont have to rely on either reviews or any silly DBTs.

My impression is that some here may have been hitting the beer *before* posting

Totally agree with you Now can you puff into this breath test analyzer?

 

[Chu Gai]

limit's now 0.08!

I don't think anyone including myself was debating that the valve-heads didn't hear anything or that the sound wasn't or couldn't be different. Rather it had more to do with looking at the electrical/engineering aspects and how they can and do interact with speakers that results in varying degrees of equalization.

 

[Mary M S]

Is there big trouble in River city now, (do you really think there is drinking going on in that-there pool hall?) hijacking ranging cross violins to the validity of double blinds should fuel the tubes Vs SS debate merrily.

The very few real live eggheads, I’ve had the pleasure to cross moments with growing up had a distinct disadvantage. In the range of their ‘gifts’ (you might call it) their awe inspiring mental advantages are a chilling confidence buster. However each egghead I’ve observed in person had the distinct disadvantage of having a dearth of common sense. That combination in one gifted human package often causing laughable or sadly poignant situations where even a Gump would have chosen wisely and well by comparison. Steve, I know your implication regarding the trained (or gifted) in one field not qualifing as anything higher than just ‘opinionated’ in areas unrelated to their expertise, to hold true more often than not. Although I can admire toothpick counting at a glance I would not request help from a certain type of idiot savant (Rainman) to help me purchase underwear. (‘got to be K-Mart’).

The reason I asked the initial violin question referred to was it’s a stereotypical example of what often sets off people fixated on cause and response into scoff zone. Whenever I am reading topics in unfamiliar territory (tubes Vs SS) I tend to apply allegorical references to help further my understanding. Science particularly in the branch of physics is prone to using allegory to grasp conceptually difficult theorems. I rely on this method too heavily trying to wrap my very slow brain around subjects. Violinists who felt for years deep in their (sheepish!) guts that an instrument after rest had a different ‘feel’ when bowed, now have a microscopic reason to rejoice, re: long-chain polymers reknitting via fair and foul fluctuations (they are not crazy) or simply ‘emotional’ nor simply projecting via the vehicle of pathetic fallacy or anthropopathism.

I tend towards oxymoronic humor when contemplating that in science the same passion and intuitiveness required to fuel the greatest leaps in the advancement of knowledge is simultaneously the always rigorously suspected poor relation.

I sound like I’m going on dead set against measurements such as DBT. During a quick version of a blind I used my own extremely sloppy version of science to decide if it is possible for interconnects to have discernable differences, in my living rm after reading countless posts regarding that and other similar ‘snake oil’ debates. I do believe in tests, measurements, graphs, and cold hard facts, I use these vehicles to prove-disprove for myself questions I might ponder. Do I think the TagL chart (pretty well laid out compared to many I tried to understand as I am not a statistion) is absolutely not subject to bias (or manipulation) of any sort. No, - not when I recall some pretty stiff arguments I’ve seen concerning the contamination of DB’s in the medical field which occurs inadvertently (or deliberately) but is often not exposed or refuted long past initial published results.

But let me run back to the bastion of my allegorical leanings. Have you ever seen an extremely high resolution digital pic of a gorgeous woman’s face sans makeup? Every imperfection and flaw is magnified to a clownish degree. That’s why I comfortable with the tube Vs SS debate having validity in both camps.
I know that the digital coldness (Vs analogues warm ) has a base connection (in my mind) with a plotted chart I have seen which displays the jagged ‘teeth’ of digital (on/off moments) Vs the infinite sliding range of the same sound produced and replicated via analog. I felt that about digitized reproduction before I ever saw a graph which explains it to my mind. When I read comments about coloring of sound which tubes can apply such as “non-linear distortion which can generate harmonics.. odd as well as even’ etc, I’m not disturbed.

When Chu states “Philosophically, I feel it is the job for the amplification equipment/playback equipment to take what's on the medium and transfer it faithfully to the speakers. I personally consider an amp that doesn't do that as not meeting my criteria for the term high fideltiy. Fidelity is honesty and I consider a device that imparts an intentional veil or coloration to the music to be unacceptable. It is by definition not neutral.”

Philosophically, I agree, - one of my pleasures in my current 950/770 setup is my perception that as compared to certain other units they display what I perceive as a high degree of transparency. Not saying they handle the entire frequency range with perfect precise precision and clarity from the subs to ultras but do an admirable job of interjecting very low levels (in my experience) of coloration’s that I find objectionable. I felt I’d keep my speakers longer than my (front/back?) end Do I have that reversed? So I prefer personal preference ‘voicing’ in speakers rather than my sources which I would rather not have interjecting high interactive levels which can make changing out components that much more tricky.

But also Chu’s statement (which I DO agree with) causes me to face up to my contrary side (do I really want to see the beautiful woman (or man) whom I admire as a work of living art to that high degree of relentless and unflinching detail. This is not emotionally conducive towards the pleasurable side of experience although faithful to reality.

Therefore I’m firmly in the camp of the probability that what the tube guys are relaying has validity.

..it [Science] is inherently self-correcting over time That truism is a double-edged sword, if science is self correcting then it is by default at any given moment and to varying degrees wrong.

Promise I did not have any beers (or other acholic beverages) preceding last nights post. (with me late hours = unihibited) I just go wild with ridiculous leanings towards (very poor) minicry of a bizzare blending of whatever I’m reading at the moment, in the oh so easy to - run away from embarssing yourself - web post zone. When I start spouting “Too adventuresome to be breifly described” type quaint speech patterns (love that quote), you know I’m reading Dickins. When I start cussing a lot I’m wacthing too many Action/Adv blockbusters.
Edited:triple spellchecked since it's daylight and I'm not so tired, but still theres that niggling issue of my grammer! sorry

 

[Steve_AS]

Some others OTOH feel they have an obligatory duty towards the high-end community to educate them and and to stop the propogation of 'audiophile roaches' from infecting the other naive denizens of this community, and yet you never see their posts in forums like AudioAsylum where these 'audiophile roaches' abound. I hope some day that will change and they will take lesson from your above advice.

Roach-killing posts are banned from the parts of AudioAsylum that most need them: e.g., discussion of cables. That's probably why you don't see many. They're also forbidden on stevehoffman.tv under almost all circumstances where they normally be employed. Heck, they may get this thread shut down *here* if thsoe beers don't arrive soon.

 

[Steve_AS]

..it [Science] is inherently self-correcting over time That truism is a double-edged sword, if science is self correcting then it is by default at any given moment and to varying degrees wrong.

And to varying degrees of confidence, *right*. The degrees of 'right' being determined by how well the science has continued to deal with the data. It is always *possibly* wrong or it isn't science. That's a virtue, not a problem.

When audiophiles offer some scientific evidence that human perceptual bias *isn't* an important factor in determining audible difference, especially nominally 'subtle' differences, then we can start to focus on how wrong the science is in this matter. The evidence *for* the existence of such bias is the ten-ton gorilla in the room that you simply can't get around by saying that science 'could be' wrong or that 'DBTs can be flawed'.

 

[Yogi]

I don't think anyone including myself was debating that the valve-heads didn't hear anything or that the sound wasn't or couldn't be different. Rather it had more to do with looking at the electrical/engineering aspects and how they can and do interact with speakers that results in varying degrees of equalization.

Agreed.

Now could someone bring those beers?

 

[Tom Grooms]

don't bring this to the Asylum, I need at least one place to chat without the naysayers screaming DBT................

 

[Chu Gai]

Hell, I'm the only one posting pics of beer. How'd I get elected to this? Well since Mary suggested it, I think it's time to break out the hard stuff...vodka that is.

 

[Steve_AS]

what's that funny-lookng one in the front? *SNAKE OIL*?

 

[Chu Gai]

that would be the highest priced one in the smallest bottle. snake's are pretty lean and takes a mess of them to make a decent amount of oil. you ought to know that!

 

[Manuel Delaflor]

Come on guys, you are still on this? I have a few points that can be held as axioms, so there is no need to discuss anything!

1) Measurements matter, but we can't measure everything that we hear.

2) DBT's can prove that some of the things we think we hear are not there.

3) One can train the brain in order for our auditory system to be more selective, that means one can learn to select what to our ears sounds more like "the real thing".

4) One should stay with what one considers more realistic sound, not with whatever theory or specs or people might say.

 

[Chu Gai]

1) agreed. but that's no excuse to not pay attention to what is known and to disregard a century's worth of careful research. Unforturnately manufacturers tend to give us (that almost sounds too nice and apologetic...inject the appropriate sarcasm and derision if you will) specifications into static loads without any clarification. We unfortunately, really don't know how the amplifier section will behave with 8 and 4 ohm nominal speakers nor with certain types of speakers with low impedance drops in the higher frequencies. We aren't informed if there are conditions that can drive an amp into oscillation. From time to time, some a$$hole who just got hired decides he or she is going to write some ad copy telling us the compelling reason to buy the amp has to do with it's enormously high damping factor and then propagate a myth about muddy bass. Matters could be helped if magazines that do in-depth reviews would spend some time designing more meaningful measurements that relate to how we hook up our equipment and stop giving passes and overlooking shortcomings. Myself, I'd like to see a bit more robustness built into various components and there's certainly a part of me that has a tendency to take issue with a manufacturer for cutting matters too closely to the bone. OTOH, I've got equal if not greater issues with manufacturers who build a unit and toss in components that add no real value but have an audiphile following or make the case heavier just to create the impression that here's one serious 'thingamajig'. I've more to say but someone took my soapbox away.

2) They can also be used to establish differences and give insight into their magnitude or importance. Their forte lies when differences are small.

3) Training is very important IMHO. However most people bring their favorite recording of the day and that's not always the best thing. Just one example. Let's say you're interested in some sort of CD or SACD player and one of your criteria (hopefully there are several) is how the unit handles orchestral music with relatively large amounts of dynamic range. Might it not make sense to perhaps bring along a piece that has a piano or violin piece that decays in intensity. It just might give you a handle on how linear the DAC or it's related circuitry is when the signals get vanishingly small. When one considers #2 above, #2 is made more relevant when individuals train themselves for what to listen for. It certainly isn't a 14 minute musical piece. Likely you're better off focussing on just a specific thing.

4) I quite agree Manual. If your thing is dipoles, planars, whatever then go for it. If it's the interaction of tubes with speakers then so be it. Nothing in the world should stop one from preferring a euphonic presentation and whether that's done via tubes, equalizers, processing modes then really so what? However you yourself have seen the angst that some posters go through when they post a question like "How come nobody talks about JMLabs or Onkyo, or whatever?" People like being part of a community whether it be mainstream or fringe.