Why Some Audiophiles Fear Measurements

[silviajulieta]

Dear Phelonious Ponk: ++++++++++++++++++ I don't know anyone who could rationally assemble a satisfying system blinded to everything but a set of measurements. ++++++++++

well I agree with what you post but the real subject is that today we don't have the " set of measurements " to do it. IMHO when we have on hand those set of psycoacustic measurements then we will do it: any one.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[silviajulieta]

Dear Tom: ++++ " Just look back over thirty years at how many "statement" and reference products have come out each year,using the same old technology over and over... " ++++++

the sad and bad part of this is that I don't see how in the near future things could change for the better when almost everybody are in constant " applaud " about.


+++++ " Although audiphiles enjoy their two channel systems, with stereo recordings mixed to hell and back, is this really the high end? After 30+ years in my experience, its the old end. Boring. and pathetic, really. " +++++

agree. We have what we deserve because this is what we help to cultivate with our years of " who cares? " attitude: almost no customer compliants on that poor audio items quality performance they own. We customers IMHO are the main culprit of what we have: if we ask and applaud the mediocrity audio items that are surround us then the manufacturers only do that: give us more mediocre high price audio items and we will applaud because of that.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[Alan Sircom]

Ah, that does change things somewhat.

However, my original statement - albeit based on my original suggestion of an inaudible deviation from the RIAA curve - stands. I would want to know 'why' a phono stage deviates from the RIAA curve, before delivering ultimate judgment on the product. If this was an explicable function of the phono stage, such as it was the only way to deliver an otherwise excellent performance and Vitus could demonstrate this, it could be considered a necessary evil, a bit like the Bugatti Veyron's ability to wear out a set of tires in 30 minutes and its fuel consumption of 1.4 US gallons per minute is a necessary evil when traveling at just a shade below 1/3rd the speed of sound along a freeway.

This would require a very good explanation, though. It would require a good explanation in a $100 phono preamp. For a $60k product, it needs to be a really, really good explanation. With diagrams and laser pointers.

 

[silviajulieta]

Ah, that does change things somewhat.

However, my original statement - albeit based on my original suggestion of an inaudible deviation from the RIAA curve - stands. I would want to know 'why' a phono stage deviates from the RIAA curve, before delivering ultimate judgment on the product. If this was an explicable function of the phono stage, such as it was the only way to deliver an otherwise excellent performance and Vitus could demonstrate this, it could be considered a necessary evil, a bit like the Bugatti Veyron's ability to wear out a set of tires in 30 minutes and its fuel consumption of 1.4 US gallons per minute is a necessary evil when traveling at just a shade below 1/3rd the speed of sound along a freeway.

This would require a very good explanation, though. It would require a good explanation in a $100 phono preamp. For a $60k product, it needs to be a really, really good explanation. With diagrams and laser pointers.

Dear Alan: I agree. I have to say that I'm not against Vitus but against the form in that the Stereophile " reviewers " manipulate the information. A " manipulation " that goes in favor of nothing because a fact like the RIAA measure chart/diagram can't be hidden in any way: only a blind person can't see it can't relate it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[Alan Sircom]

A digital system? Up to, but not including transducers, that wouldn't be much of a challenge, given the right measurements. Recordings, transducers and rooms are, of course, the wild cards. Between the two ends the technology is mature and the differences between competently designed, properly matched components are incremental at best. Hard to admit if you've spent thousands on the upgrade path; impossible to deny if you're looking at the facts, though I'm sure a plethora of protests and denials are on their way, complete with the usual ad hominem epithets about listening to charts and graphs, etc.

P

This does not in any way tally with the results of hundreds of blind, level-matched and often price-matched listening tests I attended, assisted and administered during the 1990s. I'm not being antagonistic or dismissing your statement at all, but are you basing your claim on observation or speculation?

 

[Alan Sircom]

Dear Alan: I agree. I have to say that I'm not against Vitus but against the form in that the Stereophile " reviewers " manipulate the information. A " manipulation " that goes in favor of nothing because a fact like the RIAA measure chart/diagram can't be hidden in any way: only a blind person can't see it can't relate it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

If the reviewer who listened to the product couldn't hear the problems cited by the measurement, isn't saying he heard something when he didn't a greater manipulation than merely relaying what he heard?

 

[silviajulieta]

If the reviewer who listened to the product couldn't hear the problems cited by the measurement, isn't saying he heard something when he didn't a greater manipulation than merely relaying what he heard?

Dear Alan: JA states that the RIAA deviation in the Vitus is " very low ". Alan JA is not only the STP editor in chief but a high experimented reviewer that knows absolutely that what he writes is wrong, JA is a not a " newbie/Rockie " and here we are not talking of 0.1db frequency deviation where he can say is " very low " but of a high frequency deviation!.

In the other side what you states is exactly what Tom posted about: always exist the reviewer " privilege " to say " that's what I heard " even if he heard something different.
Now and speaking on Mr. Fremer: this is not the first time that he " heard " in that way, he do it with Dartzeel review ( worst than with the Vitus ), he do it with that 350K tube amplifiers where there was a frequency deviation over 10db!!!.

If these is what Mr. Fremer is heard/hearing on those units then he is reference of nothing and an untrust source for say the least. MF is not a newbie either but I can accept he could/can be " deaf " and that's why he report what he reported or always exist the posibility that his different audio systems were really bad/flaw ones.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[Alan Sircom]

Dear Alan: JA states that the RIAA deviation in the Vitus is " very low ". Alan JA is not only the STP editor in chief but a high experimented reviewer that knows absolutely that what he writes is wrong, JA is a not a " newbie/Rockie " and here we are not talking of 0.1db frequency deviation where he can say is " very low " but of a high frequency deviation!.

In the other side what you states is exactly what Tom posted about: always exist the reviewer " privilege " to say " that's what I heard " even if he heard something different.
Now and speaking on Mr. Fremer: this is not the first time that he " heard " in that way, he do it with Dartzeel review ( worst than with the Vitus ), he do it with that 350K tube amplifiers where there was a frequency deviation over 10db!!!.

If these is what Mr. Fremer is heard/hearing on those units then he is reference of nothing and an untrust source for say the least. MF is not a newbie either but I can accept he could/can be " deaf " and that's why he report what he reported or always exist the posibility that his different audio systems were really bad/flaw ones.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

No, JA is absolutely right in saying this is not a big issue. The RIAA curve is running at about +17dB at 20Hz anyway. The best current MC cartridges will struggle to be within similar limits at 20Hz and most loudspeakers at this point will not be exactly at their best either. This anomaly should be accounted for by Vitus, but if you think this a deal-breaker or even audible in the majority of cases, I'd love to know what kind of replay chain you are using that can resolve this.

There's every possibility that the Vitus delivers an excellent performance. A +1.5dB lift at 20Hz would therefore be completely forgivable in that case; it does need to be answered - especially given the price of the product - but I'd happily trade a mild lift in the half dozen or so seconds in my whole record collection where this might possibly cause issue against the sheer number of hours where this would not if the product sounded excellent otherwise.

Moreover, if you think MF is either untrustworthy or deaf for not hearing a +1.5dB lift at 20Hz, this seems remarkably disingenuous. Enough people criticize reviewers for having Golden Ears despite evidence to the contrary; you seem to want to simultaneously criticize one for not having a set of Platinum Ears.

 

[silviajulieta]

No, JA is absolutely right in saying this is not a big issue. The RIAA curve is running at about +17dB at 20Hz anyway. The best current MC cartridges will struggle to be within similar limits at 20Hz and most loudspeakers at this point will not be exactly at their best either. This anomaly should be accounted for by Vitus, but if you think this a deal-breaker or even audible in the majority of cases, I'd love to know what kind of replay chain you are using that can resolve this.

There's every possibility that the Vitus delivers an excellent performance. A +1.5dB lift at 20Hz would therefore be completely forgivable in that case; it does need to be answered - especially given the price of the product - but I'd happily trade a mild lift in the half dozen or so seconds in my whole record collection where this might possibly cause issue against the sheer number of hours where this would not if the product sounded excellent otherwise.

Moreover, if you think MF is either untrustworthy or deaf for not hearing a +1.5dB lift at 20Hz, this seems remarkably disingenuous. Enough people criticize reviewers for having Golden Ears despite evidence to the contrary; you seem to want to simultaneously criticize one for not having a set of Platinum Ears.

Dear Alan: Obviously we are talking or have very different targets on analog quality performance. My target is " to be nearest to the recording adding and loosing the less ".

We all know that through the whole audio chain the cartridge signal pass for a lot of audio links where in each one that signal is adding many and different kind of degradation and when we can hear that signal through our speakers certainly is really away from the recording.
What can I do about?, well try to loose and add the less in any single audio link. It is not the same quality performance we can hear when a cartridge signal already begin to lose its content from 500 hz and down it that instead of that that signal in that audio link lose " nothing ".

An audio signal lose here 1db and lose there 3db and add there other distortions, etc, etc. and goes on: what are you saying? that that is not important? that we have not to care because maybe we can't hear it?. I have not only the system to be aware of all that but I'm trained to do it. Trying to attain my target I have to care in deep the cartridge signal integrity.

Now, in the Vitus example the subject is not that the cartridge signal goes down -1.5db at 20hz but that the signal goes away of the RIAA recording starting at 500hz. As I posted any single RIAA frequency deviation alter/influence and distorted the audio signal in more than two music octaves! this is the critical subject. This is where we have to understand the importance of measures and what those measures means!!!

For your post I understand you accept that fact and that's fine with me. In my case I not only don't accept it but I think that something has to be terrible wrong for a reviewer like MF can't discern about, can't discern the overall influence of that deviation: from 500hz and down.
But Alan, this same MF can't either discern +2.5db at 20hz with +1.8db at 20khz in the Daertzeel phono stage either. I'm not talking to discern the specific 20hz or 20khz discrete frequency ( I think no one can do it. ) but all the deviation in almost SIX Music Octaves in that Dartzeel unit!!!!

Alan we have to understand on what we are trying to analyze because if you are in a way different " channel " that mine we can't have a conclusion that could help us in this subject.

Of course that I understand your " bias " in favor of the STP people. Fortunately my only " bias " is the MUSIC and be truer to the recording.

Mr. JA and Mr. MF have way different targets about. I can't agree with you because that will be to go against almost everything in the true enjoyment of music through a home audio system.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

This does not in any way tally with the results of hundreds of blind, level-matched and often price-matched listening tests I attended, assisted and administered during the 1990s. I'm not being antagonistic or dismissing your statement at all, but are you basing your claim on observation or speculation?

And I would not dismiss your experience either, Alan. But you've really participated in hundreds of blind, level-matched listening tests in which components with low distortion. low noise and flat frequency response (the contemporary price of entry to "competent") demonstrated more than incremental differences through the same system in the same room? Where are the results of these tests? I've spent more time than I should studying audio on the internet (just ask my wife) and I don't think I've ever run into them.

P

 

[Alan Sircom]

Dear Alan: Obviously we are talking or have very different targets on analog quality performance. My target is " to be nearest to the recording adding and loosing the less ".

We all know that through the whole audio chain the cartridge signal pass for a lot of audio links where in each one that signal is adding many and different kind of degradation and when we can hear that signal through our speakers certainly is really away from the recording.
What can I do about?, well try to loose and add the less in any single audio link. It is not the same quality performance we can hear when a cartridge signal already begin to lose its content from 500 hz and down it that instead of that that signal in that audio link lose " nothing ".

An audio signal lose here 1db and lose there 3db and add there other distortions, etc, etc. and goes on: what are you saying? that that is not important? that we have not to care because maybe we can't hear it?. I have not only the system to be aware of all that but I'm trained to do it. Trying to attain my target I have to care in deep the cartridge signal integrity.

Now, in the Vitus example the subject is not that the cartridge signal goes down -1.5db at 20hz but that the signal goes away of the RIAA recording starting at 500hz. As I posted any single RIAA frequency deviation alter/influence and distorted the audio signal in more than two music octaves! this is the critical subject. This is where we have to understand the importance of measures and what those measures means!!!

For your post I understand you accept that fact and that's fine with me. In my case I not only don't accept it but I think that something has to be terrible wrong for a reviewer like MF can't discern about, can't discern the overall influence of that deviation: from 500hz and down.
But Alan, this same MF can't either discern +2.5db at 20hz with +1.8db at 20khz in the Daertzeel phono stage either. I'm not talking to discern the specific 20hz or 20khz discrete frequency ( I think no one can do it. ) but all the deviation in almost SIX Music Octaves in that Dartzeel unit!!!!

Alan we have to understand on what we are trying to analyze because if you are in a way different " channel " that mine we can't have a conclusion that could help us in this subject.

Of course that I understand your " bias " in favor of the STP people. Fortunately my only " bias " is the MUSIC and be truer to the recording.

Mr. JA and Mr. MF have way different targets about. I can't agree with you because that will be to go against almost everything in the true enjoyment of music through a home audio system.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

I take it you have heard at least one of these products you are dismissing out of hand? I have. I've heard the DarTZeel. It's very good. It's not to my taste, but this would be the preamp I would recommend those who love the sound of Koetsu cartridges and want more of the same. Usually, there is jazz involved with such people. I would have no problems recommending this preamp in such cases, as they would struggle to find anything this side of a Zanden 1200 that comes close to matching their requirements.

You could try telling these people that the sound they enjoy isn't really 'true' enjoyment, but somehow I reckon this will not prove a fruitful exercise.

 

[Alan Sircom]

And I would not dismiss your experience either, Alan. But you've really participated in hundreds of blind, level-matched listening tests in which components with low distortion. low noise and flat frequency response (the contemporary price of entry to "competent") demonstrated more than incremental differences through the same system in the same room? Where are the results of these tests? I've spent more time than I should studying audio on the internet (just ask my wife) and I don't think I've ever run into them.

P

Hi-Fi Choice in the UK has run blind listening tests for decades. I participated in these tests as Reviews Editor from 1992-2000, in all manner of capacities.

The tests conducted by Paul Miller for example (now editor of HFN) at this time used a Pink Triangle turntable, Deltec CD player and Audio Note AN-E loudspeakers - with Deltec amplifiers as benchmark - for the whole time. The review panel was pulled from the same pool of listeners, the room remained constant, the listening level was consistent across the whole decade, even the bagels and skimmed milk tea were from the same supplier year in, year out.

 

[terryj]

the original thrust of the thread is why audiophiles fear measurements. there have been many possibilities put forward, but this latest exchange brings out another interesting one?

a lot of the time the argument is used 'because they tell us nothing substantive regarding what we hear' or similar.

here is a case where a STANDARD that a component is required to reach has not been reached, and the results of that are being dismissed or argued as being unimportant. (and if we include the '''standard''' that a halfway decent amp should be flat in it's frequency response then we have an amplifier example as well, even tho that per se is not a STANDARD if you follow)

Well, this IS a case where measurements do pertain very much to what we hear, that is why the standard was set, and it is being ignored or glossed over by the industry itself.

so not only do audiophiles fear measurements, the industry encourages the demotion of measurements to a lesser level of importance and elevates this 'just listen to it' mentality. What is ironic is we can go to another thread on a different topic and find audiophiles moanin and a groanin about 'horrible recordings' boo hoo, crying and ululating in despair, and ask 'why does not the recording industry have standards like the movies industry?'

Then go back to ignoring measurements on our side of the chain.

Well, the RIAA IS a standard that was set. Why is such a poor result being defended? At the very least it was incompetent no? I bet a fifty dollar behringer unit would be better engineered in that regard. (and the amp would be flatter too by the by)

The only way to progress is to improve components by following a known path, to incrementally improve on what we have. Not by any old just throwing in their own varied and disparate rubbish along the way.

Re putting together a competent systems based on measurements, yep for sure you could (with the same warnings as PP outlined..the only thing I would need to listen to would be the speakers).

I'd be willing to bet many dollars that for any given budget I could put together a far better system than the typical audiophile could. Why? well, one of the workable definitions of an audiophile is 'someone who pays attention to the unimportant'. So no doubt the (poor) audiophile would be mixing and matching all the different parts of the chain (synergy, heard of it?? what a completely useless word, worse than prat in it's ability to explain nothing) thereby losing sight of the bigger picture.

One last measurement I'd like to point to, and very ironically it is probably the most important measurement that audiophiles fear the most and ignore the most!

First off, let's broaden the definition of 'measurement' a little, not redefine it but get the basic quantum concept of it that most will not think of normally. In quantum experiments a measurement is often whether or not an event occurred or did not occur, the existence or otherwise of any given phenomenon. The deflection of a light meter when the sun comes out from behind the clouds shows the rays of the sun, that type of thing.

In this most basic level, we are not concerned with the figures that go with the measurement, rather only that 'it exists' or 'does not exist'. It simply denotes the presence or non presence. We can use touch, visual impulse or many other senses to do a measurement of the physical universe around us.

So, hearing IS a measurement instrument. 'Raise you finger when you hear the 15k tone'. (the guy claims he can hear a 15k tone at x decibels)

For many the cold sinking dread will have set in, knowing by now where I am going.

DBT.

'Trust you ears'??? Here is the one measurement we are continually exhorted to trust, and the one most every audiophile will reject when confronted with!!!!

Oh the irony is so great it hurts!

So yes, on many and varied levels audiophiles fear measurements, up to and including the ones using their ears hahaha.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Hi-Fi Choice in the UK has run blind listening tests for decades. I participated in these tests as Reviews Editor from 1992-2000, in all manner of capacities.

The tests conducted by Paul Miller for example (now editor of HFN) at this time used a Pink Triangle turntable, Deltec CD player and Audio Note AN-E loudspeakers - with Deltec amplifiers as benchmark - for the whole time. The review panel was pulled from the same pool of listeners, the room remained constant, the listening level was consistent across the whole decade, even the bagels and skimmed milk tea were from the same supplier year in, year out.

Damned good thing the bagels remained consistent . Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there are no audible differences between electronic components. I've heard them myself. But in my experience, they are either very small, compared to the differences between transducers, active vs. passive systems, treated vs. untreated rooms etc., or something is amiss. Small, of course, is a pretty subjective term.

P

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

the original thrust of the thread is why audiophiles fear measurements. there have been many possibilities put forward, but this latest exchange brings out another interesting one?

a lot of the time the argument is used 'because they tell us nothing substantive regarding what we hear' or similar.

here is a case where a STANDARD that a component is required to reach has not been reached, and the results of that are being dismissed or argued as being unimportant. (and if we include the '''standard''' that a halfway decent amp should be flat in it's frequency response then we have an amplifier example as well, even tho that per se is not a STANDARD if you follow)

Well, this IS a case where measurements do pertain very much to what we hear, that is why the standard was set, and it is being ignored or glossed over by the industry itself.

so not only do audiophiles fear measurements, the industry encourages the demotion of measurements to a lesser level of importance and elevates this 'just listen to it' mentality. What is ironic is we can go to another thread on a different topic and find audiophiles moanin and a groanin about 'horrible recordings' boo hoo, crying and ululating in despair, and ask 'why does not the recording industry have standards like the movies industry?'

Then go back to ignoring measurements on our side of the chain.

Well, the RIAA IS a standard that was set. Why is such a poor result being defended? At the very least it was incompetent no? I bet a fifty dollar behringer unit would be better engineered in that regard. (and the amp would be flatter too by the by)

The only way to progress is to improve components by following a known path, to incrementally improve on what we have. Not by any old just throwing in their own varied and disparate rubbish along the way.

Re putting together a competent systems based on measurements, yep for sure you could (with the same warnings as PP outlined..the only thing I would need to listen to would be the speakers).

I'd be willing to bet many dollars that for any given budget I could put together a far better system than the typical audiophile could. Why? well, one of the workable definitions of an audiophile is 'someone who pays attention to the unimportant'. So no doubt the (poor) audiophile would be mixing and matching all the different parts of the chain (synergy, heard of it?? what a completely useless word, worse than prat in it's ability to explain nothing) thereby losing sight of the bigger picture.

One last measurement I'd like to point to, and very ironically it is probably the most important measurement that audiophiles fear the most and ignore the most!

First off, let's broaden the definition of 'measurement' a little, not redefine it but get the basic quantum concept of it that most will not think of normally. In quantum experiments a measurement is often whether or not an event occurred or did not occur, the existence or otherwise of any given phenomenon. The deflection of a light meter when the sun comes out from behind the clouds shows the rays of the sun, that type of thing.

In this most basic level, we are not concerned with the figures that go with the measurement, rather only that 'it exists' or 'does not exist'. It simply denotes the presence or non presence. We can use touch, visual impulse or many other senses to do a measurement of the physical universe around us.

So, hearing IS a measurement instrument. 'Raise you finger when you hear the 15k tone'. (the guy claims he can hear a 15k tone at x decibels)

For many the cold sinking dread will have set in, knowing by now where I am going.

DBT.

'Trust you ears'??? Here is the one measurement we are continually exhorted to trust, and the one most every audiophile will reject when confronted with!!!!

Oh the irony is so great it hurts!

So yes, on many and varied levels audiophiles fear measurements, up to and including the ones using their ears hahaha.

But, but, but the rolled-off bass on that preamp was freakin GARGANTUAN!!!!!

P

 

[Alan Sircom]

the original thrust of the thread is why audiophiles fear measurements. there have been many possibilities put forward, but this latest exchange brings out another interesting one?

a lot of the time the argument is used 'because they tell us nothing substantive regarding what we hear' or similar.

here is a case where a STANDARD that a component is required to reach has not been reached, and the results of that are being dismissed or argued as being unimportant. (and if we include the '''standard''' that a halfway decent amp should be flat in it's frequency response then we have an amplifier example as well, even tho that per se is not a STANDARD if you follow)

Well, this IS a case where measurements do pertain very much to what we hear, that is why the standard was set, and it is being ignored or glossed over by the industry itself.

so not only do audiophiles fear measurements, the industry encourages the demotion of measurements to a lesser level of importance and elevates this 'just listen to it' mentality. What is ironic is we can go to another thread on a different topic and find audiophiles moanin and a groanin about 'horrible recordings' boo hoo, crying and ululating in despair, and ask 'why does not the recording industry have standards like the movies industry?'

Then go back to ignoring measurements on our side of the chain.

Well, the RIAA IS a standard that was set. Why is such a poor result being defended? At the very least it was incompetent no? I bet a fifty dollar behringer unit would be better engineered in that regard. (and the amp would be flatter too by the by)

The only way to progress is to improve components by following a known path, to incrementally improve on what we have. Not by any old just throwing in their own varied and disparate rubbish along the way.

Re putting together a competent systems based on measurements, yep for sure you could (with the same warnings as PP outlined..the only thing I would need to listen to would be the speakers).

I'd be willing to bet many dollars that for any given budget I could put together a far better system than the typical audiophile could. Why? well, one of the workable definitions of an audiophile is 'someone who pays attention to the unimportant'. So no doubt the (poor) audiophile would be mixing and matching all the different parts of the chain (synergy, heard of it?? what a completely useless word, worse than prat in it's ability to explain nothing) thereby losing sight of the bigger picture.

One last measurement I'd like to point to, and very ironically it is probably the most important measurement that audiophiles fear the most and ignore the most!

First off, let's broaden the definition of 'measurement' a little, not redefine it but get the basic quantum concept of it that most will not think of normally. In quantum experiments a measurement is often whether or not an event occurred or did not occur, the existence or otherwise of any given phenomenon. The deflection of a light meter when the sun comes out from behind the clouds shows the rays of the sun, that type of thing.

In this most basic level, we are not concerned with the figures that go with the measurement, rather only that 'it exists' or 'does not exist'. It simply denotes the presence or non presence. We can use touch, visual impulse or many other senses to do a measurement of the physical universe around us.

So, hearing IS a measurement instrument. 'Raise you finger when you hear the 15k tone'. (the guy claims he can hear a 15k tone at x decibels)

For many the cold sinking dread will have set in, knowing by now where I am going.

DBT.

'Trust you ears'??? Here is the one measurement we are continually exhorted to trust, and the one most every audiophile will reject when confronted with!!!!

Oh the irony is so great it hurts!

So yes, on many and varied levels audiophiles fear measurements, up to and including the ones using their ears hahaha.

OK, here's the problem. Back in the day when I used to test a lot of phono stages and such things were both measured thoroughly and tested, I encountered an issue.

I was using a Pink Triangle PIP at the time. Despite its alarming ability to lock the user out every few days, and its inability to correctly charge the battery supply, it stuck closer to the RIAA curve than any other phono preamplifier I had ever used. It was obsessively neutral, and measured to within 0.1dB of the RIAA curve from DC to light. This was still at the time when I was using a PT Anniversary, SME V and a Technics EPC 205, although that flatted out half way through the test and I had to resort to a Highphonic MC-A5. This was pretty much as neutral a front-end as could be produced at the time.

I was given an Audiolab 8000PPA to test. This was the first product that in measured performance matched that of the PIP. They should have been functionally identical.

They weren't. The 8000PPA was the sort of product that gave neutrality a bad name. I invited a series of listeners for blind testing, level matched and blind enough that they did not even know what products they were listening to. Same result. I played the 8000PPA at high levels, low levels, with all kinds of genre. It was the first product in more than a decade that should have been as good as the PIP to deliver a neutral performance (the PIP itself had been discontinued for a decade and was almost impossible to recommend because they were virtually unavailable). But no-one liked the PPA. It sounded dull.

This wasn't a test where 'no-one' really meant about eight out of ten people. Everyone picked the PIP as the better product. Every time, no matter how lax or how stringent the test was.

How can this be?

 

[terryj]

Hi alan

while I remember, I just saw your response to seans blog 'dishonesty of sighted listening' where you mentioned the blind variant of allowing the listeners to vary the volume to their taste, and the (tentative) results you had obtained when that was done.

I don't have much to say other than it is an interesting point you raised, thanks. Maybe you have more info on it to give?

In regards to your last post (and I'd better add I was only on the tail end of vinyl, interested enough as any seventeen year old would have been in the technical side of it all, but most definitely no expert in the arcane matters of proper vinyl setup!) have we not gone onto a tangent??

From what I gather both of the measured very close to the RIAA curve, so any sonic differences come from something else no?

Instead, I (thought) we were 'arguing' whether or not a product, to be called competent, needed to reach the standards set for any design to fulfill that function.

So no, I don't see your example as somehow showing 'here is the problem'. IF you have moved the goalposts to 'what people like' well fine, we are out of the bounds of standards and accuracy and have nothing to discuss, you may love tomato sauce on your ice cream I would never say you did not, nor does it mean I should (stupid example but hey, best I could do on short notice ok??!!)

So how can that be?? Simple, you were deciding on measures other than fidelity to the RIAA curve, because as you said, they were identical in that regard.

 

[silviajulieta]

Dear Tomelex/Terryj: Along that I'm with yours posts seems to me that more than audiophiles maybe manufacturers are more " fear " about measurements.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[silviajulieta]

I take it you have heard at least one of these products you are dismissing out of hand? I have. I've heard the DarTZeel. It's very good. It's not to my taste, but this would be the preamp I would recommend those who love the sound of Koetsu cartridges and want more of the same. Usually, there is jazz involved with such people. I would have no problems recommending this preamp in such cases, as they would struggle to find anything this side of a Zanden 1200 that comes close to matching their requirements.

You could try telling these people that the sound they enjoy isn't really 'true' enjoyment, but somehow I reckon this will not prove a fruitful exercise.

Dear Alan: Good that you ask about. I don't only heard the Dartzeel but along some CA ( USA, I live in México city. ) very fine an experienced audio friends I meet in a trip to USA we did some interesting tests against other Phonolinepreamp.

Things were that three-four months before appear the Dartzeel STP review we heard it in two-three different and very good audio systems ( systems that I was hearing for the first time. ) and when we finished those hearing tests our opinion was that the unit performs good in a pleaseant way.

My opinion was that the Dartzeel in some way was designed with a signal manipulation in porpose at both frequency extremes and very especial in the low bass. I said " design manipulation " because no one designer could make the mistakes that shows the STP measurements when was reviewed. I told my friends that in my opinion if the unit sounds pleaseant at the ears IMHO was and have high colorations at both frequency extremes that affect all the unit quality performance and not for the better. Btw, please don't bring here the Koetsu ( IMHO ) one of the greatest HE " fraud/wiles " in the history.

Alan, I don't only heard those RIAA errors but I identified way before I was aware of its measurements that confirm what I heard. My friends can give testimony of that, even I have emails with them where this was confirmed.

Any one can do that if is/has the training to do it, I have that kind of training and several audio friends ( some in this forum. ) could give testimonies about.

I don't heard the Vitus but as the Dartzeel I already heard almost all the best electronics out there and certainly the " not the best " too. I only talk when I have the " hairs " in my hand, I almost never speculate.

So, why MF can't /could not discern about on those units in his own system with all the test time he had and I did it in a short time with systems that I heard for first time?

Do you have an answer about other of what I posted?. In your posts you are " putting your hands in the fire for that STP people ", I hope they could appreciate that. But what are you really defending? MF bad/wrong reviews? Vitus? JA? measurements? AHEE? audio magazynes? or what. IMHO opinion there is no defense: the facts are there, simple as that.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

They weren't. The 8000PPA was the sort of product that gave neutrality a bad name. I invited a series of listeners for blind testing, level matched and blind enough that they did not even know what products they were listening to. Same result. I played the 8000PPA at high levels, low levels, with all kinds of genre. It was the first product in more than a decade that should have been as good as the PIP to deliver a neutral performance (the PIP itself had been discontinued for a decade and was almost impossible to recommend because they were virtually unavailable). But no-one liked the PPA. It sounded dull.

This wasn't a test where 'no-one' really meant about eight out of ten people. Everyone picked the PIP as the better product. Every time, no matter how lax or how stringent the test was.

How can this be?

No one can answer that question without knowing a lot more about the measurement and listening testing methodology, but the short answer is this: Something was wrong. If there was enough of a difference between these two "neutral" preamps for a room full of listeners to hear in true blind testing conditions, that difference is measurable.

P