People who are actually "science minded" will not be disputing amplifier warm up, as this is readily explainable in terms of known physics, electrical engineering, and, specifically, amplifier design. If they don't happen to know these subject areas they will at least know enough to keep quiet.
Audio Science: Does it explain everything about how something sounds?
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
- Status
People who are actually "science minded" will not be disputing amplifier warm up, as this is readily explainable in terms of known physics, electrical engineering, and, specifically, amplifier design. If they don't happen to know these subject areas they will at least know enough to keep quiet.
Right. But you completely exclude the possibility that you alone changed, not the amps. Not the soundfield.
Are you familiar with those Yamaha NS-10s used in studios? That sound so horrid they sometime have the tweeters covered with tissues. Yet after a while, the listeners say the sound isn't so bad. They perceptually adapt.
I your view, it would be the Yamahas that have changed. In sciences verifiable, repeatable view, it is the persons perception that have changed. The Yamahas haven't changed one iota, despite their "warm up". Perception has.
Their sole target market is audiophiles. No one else. IOW, folks will will readily accept such inconveniences and rituals.
Who knows, maybe the amp is so pathological, that the electrical output after 1 hr varies to the point of audibility. I have no idea...and I have seen zero evidence to support this contention. I could care less if the distortion drops tenfold, from 0.01 to 0.001% THD. Electrical and temperature "changes" are utterly meaningless if inaudible to human ears.
No need, I'm a member of an audiophile club where several members own Pass, including those. I know all the rituals well.
You have and I am not disputing your observations. Your observations are purely subjective. There is nothing to dispute about them. I am disputing whether the source of those perceived changes originate form the soundfield, i.e. soundwaves>ears. There is absolutely nothing mysterious about that. Science has been measuring soundwaves for a long time. Stereophony which creates that "image" you hear between the speakers despite no one or instruments there, was created by a scientist. Transduced via your electro-acoustic system. Created by science.
cheers,
AJ
People who are "science minded", would provide scientific evidence of such claims, other than "Because I said so".
And (audible) perceptual data, is outside the realm of just "physics, electrical engineering, and, specifically, amplifier design".
If my intended use for an audio device is to better connect with the music then I'm going to test it in the way I intend to use it - in a way that I'm familiar with & I use every day to make judgements about the audio world surrounding me & not in some false scenario where I'm listening in a completely different way to it's intended use & don't know in what way I'm being influenced by in this scenario.
As Tomolex & I agreed there is no ultimate trustworthy method so we both have different approaches to judging the trust level of a method. I can live with less than 100% trustworthy methods of evaluation as long as my experience tells me that I have not been led astray by it. But this audio hobby is a journey of improvement & I could look back many years ago & realise that I didn't have as quarter a good system then as I do now. Was I being led astray then? No, I just wasn't exposed to better components then to realise how much better it could sound. That's the issue with this hobby, we often don't recognise a disturbance to our auditory perception (or vaguely register it as listener fatigue or uninvolvement in the music) until it is removed
But this trust thing becomes very twisted when I see Amir's positive ABX results being dismissed by the ABX mafia because they don't trust Amir. So are these tests to be trusted or is this just another ruse.
Of course. It is quite laughable that some 'science-minded' people do dispute amplifier warm up. They lose all credibility by doing so.
Sorry for not responding to this thread for a couple of days guys. Had guests over and no time for forum posting .
I post what I did in response to subjectivists saying their feelings were heard by all the talk of science. But then you post the classic line to the effect of "there is so much audible difference that science can't explain." (this is my paraphrase). I explained that this is highly derogatory to objectivists. It presumes that audible differences exists but the people who study and research audio science can't explain them. The truth is the opposite. Audio Science has studied these differences and does not consider them likely or at all audible. So you cannot start with the assumption that such things are audible and then proceed to call competence of audio researchers into question.
How can we in the context of demanding sensitivities for a group of posters here, in the next breath proceed to call people who do this work (audio evaluation) professionally incompetent? Now, if we had some evidence that they are so, well, good, let's see that. But as Tim and others have pointed, no such evidence has been put forward.
So I ask, if we are about fairness in forum discussions, how is it that as subjectivists, we don't assign any competence and truthfulness to audio researchers and their published work? Whereas we do that day in and day out to our anecdotal, non-controlled tests? Shouldn't objectivists be up in arm over such conduct even more so than some of us, in purely debate threads, discuss audio science?
.I don't think most people remember the context that led to your creating this thread but you and I. For my part, I was hesitant to answer because of people's sensitivities around this topic. But I will now.
I post what I did in response to subjectivists saying their feelings were heard by all the talk of science. But then you post the classic line to the effect of "there is so much audible difference that science can't explain." (this is my paraphrase). I explained that this is highly derogatory to objectivists. It presumes that audible differences exists but the people who study and research audio science can't explain them. The truth is the opposite. Audio Science has studied these differences and does not consider them likely or at all audible. So you cannot start with the assumption that such things are audible and then proceed to call competence of audio researchers into question.
How can we in the context of demanding sensitivities for a group of posters here, in the next breath proceed to call people who do this work (audio evaluation) professionally incompetent? Now, if we had some evidence that they are so, well, good, let's see that. But as Tim and others have pointed, no such evidence has been put forward.
So I ask, if we are about fairness in forum discussions, how is it that as subjectivists, we don't assign any competence and truthfulness to audio researchers and their published work? Whereas we do that day in and day out to our anecdotal, non-controlled tests? Shouldn't objectivists be up in arm over such conduct even more so than some of us, in purely debate threads, discuss audio science?
A model of reflections in typical listening rooms is used to build a weighted response of those 72 measurements. So the "resemblance" is there but obviously in a generalized manner to cover most typical scenario in a room.
The measurement is a frequency response sweep so includes all the audible frequencies in music.
Come again? In testing two cars, I am supposed to match their ignition timing, transmission ratio, aerodynamics, weight and such??? Surely you are not saying this. The tests match levels and that is all that we should be asking to be done to make the tests of completely different loudspeakers, proper.
No ABX testing is used in Harman tests since loudspeakers by definition sound different. Two types of audience are used: trained listeners which absolutely know how to identify tonal variations, and many other classes of listeners who are not similarly situated. The other groups have included, marketing departments, dealers of all kinds, reviewers, high-school studies, audiophiles, college students, etc. As I have shown many times, preferences for loudspeakers in blind tests is similar between different groups. Here is one graph I have shown:
Loudspeaker in green was found to be the worst by all listeners and the one in red the best (within margin of error), across all listener groups.
Notice that while absolute ratings change (trained listeners are pickier about faults), overall ranking of loudspeakers does not change between all of these groups.
By the way, this is an example of what I just wrote to Peter. It is remarkable how little credit we give to researchers in doing such work in assuming that they wouldn't bother testing different types of groups of listeners before drawing their conclusions.
There is no such thing when sighted observations are posted by subjectivists either. The absolute numbers are not important anyway but the relative one. See scores of trained listeners for example above.
Again the insulting insinuation that these are bunch of idiots that run and publish work that despite being peer reviewed, and said authors being highly decorated, would ignore basic principals of such research. We need to stop doing that. We can disagree but let's not assume we know the data without even so much as understanding the research. No test is perfect but the learning is always there in such high quality research.
I trust you have not read the research. Please do and tell criticize it and I am happy to respond, including getting Dr. Olive to answer if I can't.
It is some of the best and fundamental research accepted by countless designers in the industry. Lack of awareness among forum members does not read its correctness any more than my lay opinions would on medical science.
Sorry for not responding to this thread for a couple of days guys. Had guests over and no time for forum posting
I don't think most people remember the context that led to your creating this thread but you and I. For my part, I was hesitant to answer because of people's sensitivities around this topic. But I will now.
I post what I did in response to subjectivists saying their feelings were heard by all the talk of science. But then you post the classic line to the effect of "there is so much audible difference that science can't explain." (this is my paraphrase). I explained that this is highly derogatory to objectivists. It presumes that audible differences exists but the people who study and research audio science can't explain them. The truth is the opposite. Audio Science has studied these differences and does not consider them likely or at all audible. So you cannot start with the assumption that such things are audible and then proceed to call competence of audio researchers into question.
How can we in the context of demanding sensitivities for a group of posters here, in the next breath proceed to call people who do this work (audio evaluation) professionally incompetent? Now, if we had some evidence that they are so, well, good, let's see that. But as Tim and others have pointed, no such evidence has been put forward.
So I ask, if we are about fairness in forum discussions, how is it that as subjectivists, we don't assign any competence and truthfulness to audio researchers and their published work? Whereas we do that day in and day out to our anecdotal, non-controlled tests? Shouldn't objectivists be up in arm over such conduct even more so than some of us, in purely debate threads, discuss audio science?
Sorry Amir, that is not quite right. *Edit: In fact, I have no idea what you are talking about here. You attribute opinions to me which I do not hold.* I am glad you bring this up again, because it is the part of my OP that has not yet really been discussed and I would like to know what others think.
What I wrote is this: "There is plenty of room for discussions about both objective measurements and data and how they effect audio system performance and also subjective listening impressions and how our ears tell us things that audio science can not yet explain." I think this is a fairly balanced and benign statement, upon reflection.
You write that you explained that this is highly derogatory to objectivists and further stated that, "As to confrontation, unfortunately that is what we have even in your statement when you say "audio science can't yet explain." Audio science very much explains much of what you think it doesn't. You don't like that answer but you have to understand that such comments are inflammatory to the other camp and hugely so. You are telling them that they have to throw out a mountain of research, published and accepted audio science. As I said, on a number of other forums, any of the active threads on our forum would have been considered "anti-science" and riots in streets would follow. confrontational."
You made your case before and I simply asked in the OP of this thread whether or not my original comment, in bold above, seems confrontational, controversial and "(hugely) inflammatory to the other camp"? Are the objectivists, or anyone for that matter, offended by this phrase? I'm curious and want to learn if and why this might be."
After 90 pages and 892 posts, there has been little or no discussion about just how inflammatory my comment is.
Last edited:
Was that a yes? Sure sounded like a yes. In any case, this certainly sounds like you wouldn't trust sighted listening:
Unless of course, we're caught in semantics again. Could be, given that sighted listing is not a test of any kind.
Tim
There is nothing in the least inflammatory about your comment. I would suggest than anyone who believes otherwise has not read it carefully, is having a bad day, or is not a reasonable person.
Hi Amir,
This is a replacement post for the original post I had here. I've deleted the content, and have decided to say instead that I appreciate your contribution to WBF, and consider many of your posts to be intelligent and insightful.
The reason for deleting what was originally here is that I think the tone of this thread is heading somewhat south (as commented on by some members here I have a lot of respect for), and I don't want to be a contributor to that happening.
I think Peter's original question is an incredibly interesting one, and I, personally, would love to see robust, intelligent scientific analysis and research dedicated to better understanding not just frequency response and preference, but also preference related to the temporal and dynamic aspects of the gear we listen to, which as far as I can conclude in my searches, no one is doing.
Neither do I see research being done on the relationship between steady-state signals used for testing individual components in isolation and their resultant measurements and whether that has any bearing on how our physiological and neurological processing affects our emotional state (and our ability to make memories that inform decision making) when listening to the dynamic and always-modulating signals of music. Is the science available to explain this? I believe so, but I don't see anyone doing it anytime soon.
I hope it goes without saying that it would be great if it was being conducted by third parties whose robustness related to tangible and intangible conflicts of interest was applied to both investigator and subject alike, but perhaps that will never happen. What's more, I think it's as foolish to discount a heuristic approach to building a strong narrative of enquiry just because one is not a "highly decorated" author, as much as it is remain ignorant of the existing research, even if it contains problematic areas worthy of continual refinement. (I did read Loudspeakers and Rooms for Multichannel Audio Reproduction, hence my original posts and comments.)
Ultimately though, WBF is a forum where we gather to discuss the core and peripheral elements of a hobby that will always be the domain of the privileged few, a first-world forum for debating first-world problems. In that regard, I've chosen to ensure my self-esteem is kept off the internet, and hope that I can be respectful toward the sensitivities of others, without demanding they acquiesce to mine.
If anything in my posts had offended you, then please let me know, and I'll be happy to apologise.
Last edited:
Peter,
This is a very well known fact and not a unique phenomenon to you, electronics can sound better when warmed up; period! Unless the product is crap to begin with, then nothing will help.
david
Right. But you completely exclude the possibility that you alone changed, not the amps. Not the soundfield.
Are you familiar with those Yamaha NS-10s used in studios? That sound so horrid they sometime have the tweeters covered with tissues. Yet after a while, the listeners say the sound isn't so bad. They perceptually adapt.
I your view, it would be the Yamahas that have changed. In sciences verifiable, repeatable view, it is the persons perception that have changed. The Yamahas haven't changed one iota, despite their "warm up". Perception has.
Their sole target market is audiophiles. No one else. IOW, folks will will readily accept such inconveniences and rituals.
Who knows, maybe the amp is so pathological, that the electrical output after 1 hr varies to the point of audibility. I have no idea...and I have seen zero evidence to support this contention. I could care less if the distortion drops tenfold, from 0.01 to 0.001% THD. Electrical and temperature "changes" are utterly meaningless if inaudible to human ears.
No need, I'm a member of an audiophile club where several members own Pass, including those. I know all the rituals well.
You have and I am not disputing your observations. Your observations are purely subjective. There is nothing to dispute about them. I am disputing whether the source of those perceived changes originate form the soundfield, i.e. soundwaves>ears. There is absolutely nothing mysterious about that. Science has been measuring soundwaves for a long time. Stereophony which creates that "image" you hear between the speakers despite no one or instruments there, was created by a scientist. Transduced via your electro-acoustic system. Created by science.
cheers,
AJ
You're disputing a known fact about electronics, why? Your NS-10 example has nothing to with electronics reaching peak operating temperature.
david
At the very least, electronic gear needs to warm up before it stabilizes and operates, with no variation/drift, per its specifications. I have found my Pass amps sound their best after 24 hours, are very close after 5 hours, and okay after 1 hour. Before the technician would calibrate my TV I had to have all electronics in the link (Blueray, AVR, TV) on for at least 5 hours so that it would be stable.
Hi Bud,
If electronic gear needs this "warm up", how do you know the sound changes you hear aren't the Lumin S1, Pass XP-20 pre, Shunyata Triton v2/Typhon for source, Cyclops v2 (2) for amps
Shunyata Z Anaconda XLR analog ICs, Z Anaconda speaker cables, Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables, Revelation Audio Passage Cryo-Silver Reference DB-25 umbilical power cables, your wall outlets, etc, etc, etc?
Not one of those things need stabilization or change sound?
cheers,
AJ
Last edited:
Do your own homework! I assume that you have ears and test equipment, if not simply google it.
(Edit) As a manufacturer are you seriously arguing that there isn't a peak operating temperature for electronic components, i.e. capacitors, transistors, etc. and parameters don't change within the first hour of operation?
david
Last edited:
Well, other than the amps, everything else is turned on, but, yes, it could possibly be a combination of everything stabilizing together once the amps are turned on.
- Status
Similar threads
