Sorry it didn't work for me, same SQ

[tonerei]

Fair enough will do,

Grand if you have any questions etc afterwards happy to try and answer.

Hippers link to a book by Jim Smith sounds interesting and is probably something John K will follow up. I think the work done on the pc transport is possibly doing what Jim is talking about when comparing analogue tape and digital.
But curious if Mr Smith heard a Lampizator Big7 with a linear/battery powered pc would he re-evaluate his view?

 

[Ciunas Audio]

Shouldn't we attempt to replay/playback the original source as recorded and try not to induce further noise via the playback setup? Difficult but not impossible because I believe that noise below -110/120db tends not to be audible

You are reading Hipper's example incorrectly - what he is reporting from the book is that low level detail is perceivably more accurate in 30 IPS tape than RB CD (and, btw, welcome to both Hipper & Yping).

That seems to be Jim Smith's observation from the book.

The reasons for it should be investigated & argued about, of course - incorrect use of dither in RB, inherent problem of digital audio low level, role of noise in our perceptions - but if it turns out that the higher level of noise on tape is the reason for our better perception, wouldn't we be foolish to ignore this? After all the goal of this hobby is the recreation by our playback systems of the most realistic audio illusion - does it matter how a better illusion is achieved? Do we not do this all the time with our sense of sight - use knowledge of its underlying principles to create a better illusion in video/movie/3D playback?

It all comes back to developing a more complete model of our auditory perception - until we achieve this, we will have on-going discussions like these on all forums - people with half-truths arguing with other people with half-truths

 

[Ciunas Audio]

It's not a claim. It is simply a logical conclusion drawn from the claims of others.

The claim is that hearing perception is actually a composite of multi-sensory input, including vision. The McGurk effect was erroneously used to try to make the point, but setting that aside, the argument (not disputed) is that the brain takes into account input from all available senses to construct its image of what is going on, thus hearing perception is affected by what you see. You have advocated as much, yourself.

From which it surely follows that if you can't see something, your hearing perception will be different to what it would be if you could see it. This is the argument for blind testing. But it ignores the multifaceted nature of hearing perception, and assumes that not-seeing merely removes bias. I don't think you can make that assumption. I would not be surprised to learn that it removes other stuff, too. I have no knowledge of that, but then I suspect neither do you.

Of course it's logical, Sue, just as reducing multi-modal inputs to other perceptions causes a diminution in their abilities - sight is more accurate with hearing, taste is more accurate with smell - why would hearing be any different?

Where the argument is, is that knowledge of what we are hearing can throw us into a minefield of bias which can override our hearing. This is what needs to be examined & not just accepted blindly )).

The practicalities & downsides of blind listening Vs sighted listening need an objective view

What I think most sensible people understand & do is mostly sighted extended listening & evaluation with a dip into a blind listen every once in a while to cross check. But most don't get hung up in this - it's a hobby & should be enjoyable

 

[awkwardbydesign]

What I think most sensible people understand & do is mostly sighted extended listening & evaluation with a dip into a blind listen every once in a while to cross check. But most don't get hung up in this - it's a hobby & should be enjoyable

And I think that is a difference between some of the exponents of the opposing views. I for one, am not making and selling equipment, so evaluating by listening (sighted) works for me.

 

[Lee T]

err, you apparently...



http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=178438

Re the OP, I've done a few things that am pretty sure have not affected sound quality but dealt with my neuroses, are vanity projects or just for something to do - replacing Van Damme cables with Mogami, configuring the system so it all runs balanced because my dac has balanced output only, removing power pin from usb cable and putting in an Aqvox, making my own headphone cable. All makes me a little happier.

Wow, that is so out of context it's funny, 2 completely seperate threads about 2 very different things,

To clarify, as obviously you have missed the point entirely

When asking for info on the regenerator, it was info needed as i have never tried this route as the rest of the post explained but you decided to miss out, my post regarding the other snippet is regarding our own system currently in use as you well know but wanted a little "air time"

I don't care what others think of "my" system, i do care what experiences others have had with a regenerator as i don't own one currently, hence the requested info.

 

[Ibbots]

The post quoted was nothing to do with 'your' system but the general pontificating on the thread - perhaps you should be more explicit in setting context..

 

[Alexh]

What do you think about Diyers or Hifi designers?
What happens to the expectation bias when you do not know if it will sound good or bad until it is tried for the first time ....

 

[tonerei]

What do you think about Diyers or Hifi designers?
What happens to the expectation bias when you do not know if it will sound good or bad until it is tried for the first time ....

Would accept that there is potential to be blinded by expectation bias.
There can be the tendency to be persuaded by the most vocal.

In the grouping of people I have been involved with their is dac designer,speaker designer a mix of computer literate people, a few musicians, die hard TT people and a mix of high end owners who have not embraced CA yet. A variety of other types including myself have been involved in the journey. In our case all are well able to voice their opinions and a consensus emerges over time. But as mentioned above the more vocal often could drive a view but I think it ultimately evens out over time.

To answer your question directly Diyers are suck and see and imho we have been blessed with some gifted and inspired characters who have often taken the hit financially to trial some of the ideas but also have put a lot of research into the routes choosen. Imho again they have hit the jackpot and I am very happy that I got involved and got so much enjoyment out of the journey.

 

[Lee T]

The post quoted was nothing to do with 'your' system but the general pontificating on the thread - perhaps you should be more explicit in setting context..

Perhaps you should do something more useful than trolling through my posts in some absurd quest to try (& fail) to catch me out, quite sad, but hey ho some of us have nothing better to contribute.

Combining posts from 2 very seperate threads is meaningless & has no context.

It was quite obvious to any inteligent being what my point was, it went over your head, no need to get all defensive & attack.

 

[Ibbots]

yeah that'll be it because I've got the hots for you, or could be I noticed that you had asked for opinions having taken the time too respond to your thread - you know, contributing something instead of just spouting off and trying to denigrate others opinions and choices.

Anyway, carry on

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Of course it's logical, Sue, just as reducing multi-modal inputs to other perceptions causes a diminution in their abilities - sight is more accurate with hearing, taste is more accurate with smell - why would hearing be any different?

Where the argument is, is that knowledge of what we are hearing can throw us into a minefield of bias which can override our hearing. This is what needs to be examined & not just accepted blindly )).

The practicalities & downsides of blind listening Vs sighted listening need an objective view

What I think most sensible people understand & do is mostly sighted extended listening & evaluation with a dip into a blind listen every once in a while to cross check. But most don't get hung up in this - it's a hobby & should be enjoyable

Thanks, that's my point. I'm not advocating sighted over blind, just asking for a level playing field where the potential downsides to blind are better understood and recognised, and addressed, just as those for sighted should be.

As for auditioning blind, that is surely an irrelevance. We don't listen blind at home - even if we can't see the kit, we know what is in use. So any sighted biases will be 'in play' during normal operation. It therefore seems logical to audition kit while operating in a regime similar to how it will actually be used. What would blind auditioning tell us about how much we would enjoy the kit, under sighted conditions?

 

[Lee T]

Thanks, that's my point. I'm not advocating sighted over blind, just asking for a level playing field where the potential downsides to blind are better understood and recognised, and addressed, just as those for sighted should be.

As for auditioning blind, that is surely an irrelevance. We don't listen blind at home - even if we can't see the kit, we know what is in use. So any sighted biases will be 'in play' during normal operation. It therefore seems logical to audition kit while operating in a regime similar to how it will actually be used. What would blind auditioning tell us about how much we would enjoy the kit, under sighted conditions?

I do have a slight issue with this though, are you saying you are thinking about your equipment while playing music, it would be like me sitting there thinking, my naim system is playing this track?? i have to admit it is the last thing on my mind, the music does after all come out from the speakers not the equipment, who actually thinks of anything but music when listening, i can understand if doing some kind of assessment or group test but not listening as you normally would.

 

[avole]

Blind testing has been around for a long time now, super, and limitations are well understood. It's only in HiFi forums that there are doubts, and that has more to the agenda of those expressing them.

Your last paragraph isn't logical. Some dealers, maybe not in the UK so much, do enable blind switching of components. However, my guess is they only do that when they are 100% sure the component will sound different with the selected speakers. There's a strong vested interest in sighted auditions only, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Whether we listen sighted, with eyes shut, or stare blankly into space is irrelevant. As to the wonderful idea of operating in a regime similar to how it will be used - I doubt dealers would allow the wine, food, and drugs etc into their rooms which could emulate one listening regime, and, at home, interest may soon switch away from the HiFi and onto the amazing philosophies of life.

 

[Lee T]

It's why most dealers (in the uk anyway) allow a home demo, yet to come across a uk dealer who refuses this.

It's the only way to know if it is suited to your current system in your own room.

 

[Ciunas Audio]

Thanks, that's my point. I'm not advocating sighted over blind, just asking for a level playing field where the potential downsides to blind are better understood and recognised, and addressed, just as those for sighted should be.

As for auditioning blind, that is surely an irrelevance. We don't listen blind at home - even if we can't see the kit, we know what is in use. So any sighted biases will be 'in play' during normal operation. It therefore seems logical to audition kit while operating in a regime similar to how it will actually be used. What would blind auditioning tell us about how much we would enjoy the kit, under sighted conditions?

I know - that's the obvious conclusion when you follow the logic - if we are slaves to our sight/knowledge bias & that is how we will be using the audio device, what is the point in testing something blind? It's like asking us to taste our food with our nose pinched but we are going to eat the meal with our olfactory sense intact.

I'm also of the opinion that blind testing introduces so many new variables that it is mostly invalid unless organised by professionals who are experts in perceptual testing - it is of little use to hobbyists - in fact it is detrimental because they are trying to play big-boy science without the expertise necessary & produce false results

 

[Lee T]

I know - that's the obvious conclusion when you follow the logic - if we are laves to our sight/knowledge bias & that is how we will be using the audio device, what is the point in testing something blind? It's like asking us to taste our food with our nose pinched but we are going to eat the meal with our olfactory sense intact.

I suppose blind determines if there is a satisfactory improvement to cover the outlay, if we heard something blind for example a system costing 3,000 up against one costing £800 in a demo room (i have done this) you might prefer the sound of the cheaper system or at least think the improvement with the more expensive is not worth the extra £2,200, it can have it's uses. Sighted i imagine most would just plump for the 3,000 option, if funds are not an issue thinking it has to sound far superior, but not always in my experience.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I do have a slight issue with this though, are you saying you are thinking about your equipment while playing music, it would be like me sitting there thinking, my naim system is playing this track?? i have to admit it is the last thing on my mind, the music does after all come out from the speakers not the equipment, who actually thinks of anything but music when listening, i can understand if doing some kind of assessment or group test but not listening as you normally would.

No, not thinking about the equipment, merely aware of it. Just as one would be in a sighted test, and would not be in a blind test. I don't think about what the kit is, unless consciously assessing it for any reason, but the awareness is always in the background.

 

[Purité Audio]

IME unsighted comparison, often removes 'differences' one thought existed 'sighted'
Keith.

 

[Lee T]

It also depends on the individual, we will all respond differently to stimulation, i imagine people who listen to equipment will find it harder to switch off than those who listen to music.

 

[Ciunas Audio]

Blind testing has been around for a long time now, super, and limitations are well understood. It's only in HiFi forums that there are doubts, and that has more to the agenda of those expressing them.

Your last paragraph isn't logical. Some dealers, maybe not in the UK so much, do enable blind switching of components. However, my guess is they only do that when they are 100% sure the component will sound different with the selected speakers. There's a strong vested interest in sighted auditions only, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Whether we listen sighted, with eyes shut, or stare blankly into space is irrelevant. As to the wonderful idea of operating in a regime similar to how it will be used - I doubt dealers would allow the wine, food, and drugs etc into their rooms which could emulate one listening regime, and, at home, interest may soon switch away from the HiFi and onto the amazing philosophies of life.

I believe you had a great example in this forum of just how hobbyist blind testing can be at fault for not hearing differences that are real - the four DBO group tests of various DACs organised by Vital run over the course of a year which many attended & most heard no differences sighted or blind until DB-IV.

Vital said that he felt blind testing was somewhat responsible for masking these differences throughout these listening tests & here's the real clincher, the null blind test results biased them to the point that they heard no differences sighted.