Lee, I would never try to change someone's beliefs in matters where beliefs are typically found, i.e. religion. But in the matter is science, "belief" really has no place.
The Upgrade Company
- Thread starter audioguy
- Start date
Jeff,
I gather that you do not know who Myles is. You know who Kal is. Well you may want to take a look at this link and look down the list and in particular toward the middle and the bottom:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/myles-astor/30/34b/8a6
Rich
Guys, please keep the tone friendly. Remember, we all have a huge thing in common: love of music.
Interesting tactic Jeff. Throw some more stuff out there and hope something actually sticks to the wall.
For the record, my reference system is clearly listed online; anyone, including you, can see it. However, you haven't listed the components in your system; ergo, we have no idea of what you're listening through. And yes I have done my own mods on some gear over the years including rebuilding my MGIIIa's xovers and most recently with the help of tape guru Charlie King, gutting and rebuilding my a Technics 1500 R2R. Rest assured that a deaf person could hear the differences. I've dabbled here and there with experimenting with different caps. But overall, I don't subscribe to modding gear for many reasons including you rarely if ever get a ROI. That is unless, you want to keep that piece forever (ummm....well forever here might be a couple of years).
And for the record 2, years ago I've participated in DBT cap comparison with Larry Smith of Perfectionist Audio; everyone involved ID'd the two worst sounding caps. The only variance was in the ranking of the two best caps among the listeners. The same went for some CD tweaks carried out at a NJ Audio Society meeting; of the five "tweaks" or goo as you are fond to call these accessories, everyone clearly id'd and preferred the sound of CDs treated with the green pen. Oh yes, we also did something you didn't nor does it seem any DBT/ABX control does. It's called an internal control. Did you carry out an internal control in your comparison?
Jeff has his setup posted over at AVS where he's a big regular.
He posted his room and his gear at 'maint' (several) reprises.
I believe he's more a home theater audiophile guy than just a stereo guy; but I could be wrong.
He's big now on Audyssey MultEQ XT32 and with the Pro kit setup.
But you two guys (Myles & Jeff) must certainly know each other?
He posted his room and his gear at 'maint' (several) reprises.
I believe he's more a home theater audiophile guy than just a stereo guy; but I could be wrong.
He's big now on Audyssey MultEQ XT32 and with the Pro kit setup.
But you two guys (Myles & Jeff) must certainly know each other?
Good morning, Myles. Would you be willing to fill me in on what internal control is?
An internal control is say in biochemistry, adding a known concentration of the agent/chemical [being tested] to the system and seeing if the reading/results obtained represent that known quantity. If not, there's something wrong with the assay system. For audio, it might be adding a known distortion, non-linearity, FR or phase response deviation, etc to the DUT/system that should be audible and see if in fact, the participants can correctly ID that problem. If you can't, then there's something wrong with the system. I'd also suggest that that "distortion, non-linearity, FR response deviation, etc." be at the borderline of detectability, not at the maximum levels.
Myles, sir, my understanding of posting one's equipment (which I simply haven't gotten around to here at WBF) is to provide some context for member posts when they relate in some way to the gear they use, allowing other members to be more helpful. If someone posts that they are having problems setting up two or more subs, it is relevant as to what if any version of Audyssey they are using and/or if they are using some other kind of subwoofer equalization. Being able to get the initial "housekeeping" out of the way enables other members to better help the person. At least that's how it works on AVS.
Detailing every jot and tittle of one's system relishing in the sheer esoterica of it comes off more as bragging. And slather on some name-dropping life experience involving things of questionable relevance to the subject at hand and it comes off more as, well ... willy-waving. Your thoughts and positions on things are not elevated or lowered in my mind simply because you have a Superscoutmaster turntable. Nay, that would make me superficial.
I posted what we did and how we did it. I posted the results, and whether I did here on WBF or not, I'll say that we fully acknowledge that the test could have been more "scientific." We are not scientists with facilities and equipment - nor the know-how - to do that; the test was what it was. No more and no less. Did you get from that that there are no excuses, apologies or regrets?
I have no idea what an internal control is, but if it's important to the integrity of the test and it is something we mere mortals can do, then I'd be happy to include it if we do this again.
Jeff
Detailing every jot and tittle of one's system relishing in the sheer esoterica of it comes off more as bragging. And slather on some name-dropping life experience involving things of questionable relevance to the subject at hand and it comes off more as, well ... willy-waving. Your thoughts and positions on things are not elevated or lowered in my mind simply because you have a Superscoutmaster turntable. Nay, that would make me superficial.
I posted what we did and how we did it. I posted the results, and whether I did here on WBF or not, I'll say that we fully acknowledge that the test could have been more "scientific." We are not scientists with facilities and equipment - nor the know-how - to do that; the test was what it was. No more and no less. Did you get from that that there are no excuses, apologies or regrets?
I have no idea what an internal control is, but if it's important to the integrity of the test and it is something we mere mortals can do, then I'd be happy to include it if we do this again.
Jeff
Last edited:
Did the test not have an internal control?
That would be the sighted part, the part which seemed to show the system was transparent/good enough to allow the differences through.
Once that happened, then the blinded part could also happen, yet with the knowledge the system and or switch were not bottlenecks.
Quickly, what if anything would you need to accept a negative result?
What would most of us need .. or what would the owner of the modded unit need?
So, even without knowing what an internal control was, we evidently had one. Well, I'm sure the deniers will hang their hats somewhere else.
In this case, the mod owner is really fixating on the switch. This is the same switch that let the differences in the units be heard when he knew which unit was operating, but obscured those differences when he didn't. Truth be told - or "reviewed" as it had already been posted - we ALL heard differences and we ALL preferred the modded unit WHEN WE KNEW WHICH ONE WAS OPERATING.
Jeff
Does it now? Why is he then obfuscating? I spelled out very clearly what an internal control consists of. A sighted session has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion at hand. Is that really that hard to understand?
Perhaps coming up with an audio "analog" to "adding a known concentration of the agent/chemical [being tested] to the system" is difficult. How would distortion or a FR anomaly being caused? How would the listeners detect it if it were merely at the borders of detectability? I'd like to know if an internal control is done for audio A/B/X tests and how ... is it in fact done as you posted?
What really looks like it was at the borderline of detectability is the differences between the two DUTs. And that puts TUC's outlandish claims in the FAIL category.
Jeff
It ain't so hard. Go and look at what Harman, Sean Olive, Kevin Voecks and company do for their testing procedure. It's on Sean's Expert forum here.
And if you look at what Harman has done, listening acuity/acumen is clearly a trainable quality.
I have looked at Olive's listener training course, but have not yet tried it. The easiest way for me to do it would be on my main computer system with 5.1 audio (RBH spkrs, ATI amp), but I wonder if that system would be good enough? I guess I won't know until I try ...
Jeff
Similar threads
