Audio myths and misconceptions

[Newman]

Truth (here) is stranger than fiction!

[rantan]

2 minutes ago, Newman said:

Truth (here) is stranger than fiction!

Yep.

 

Someone in another thread was promulgating the myth that HDMI cables would provide a better picture on a TV. I guess they figured that nobody would suggest a blind test so the lie is easily spread

[Guest Eggcup The Daft]

On 1/18/2018 at 9:49 PM, MLXXX said:

If I play the same CD on the same equipment 7 days in a row, sitting in the same chair, I will have a different listening experience each time.

This is the key thing. We have differing experiences all the time, for reasons other than the soundwaves. I'd suggest that we assign meanings to those different experiences. So, if we get a particularly good experience a few weeks after a system change, it isn't because we are in a good mood, or you have been drinking (I'm TT), it has to be settling or burn in.

 

Maybe not such a bad thing, as for a while after that we will expect and continue to hear the better sound. Whatever the cause...

[LHC]

On 12/24/2017 at 3:04 PM, Satanica said:

Don't kid yourself, there's open mindedness and there's acceptance of some "truth" without evidence. Your insistence that (some) objective people don't play this game with principle is your way of dismissing the knowledge they present, and at the same time invalidating the right to questions and insistence of evidence. Sometimes there's no real nice way to say "This has no truth". You can't sugar coat it; how the message is delivered has no bearing on whether it's right or not.

 

6 hours ago, Satanica said:

You have got to be kidding me?

 

There appears to a lot of kidding, so I lost track of who is kidding who. But the 'insistence of evidence' is important. I demand that of myself, and I demand that of others equally. Granted not everyone will agree on the veracity of the evidence presented in all cases.

Edited January 23, 2018 by LHC

[Newman]

On 23/01/2018 at 3:15 AM, LHC said:

....Pass....said he aims for simplistic design that measures well. They sound great because of his choice of configurations and parts used. Do bear in mind the measurements that guide him may not be the 'standard' ones, and may be misinterpreted by others as 'errors'. You can't possibly know this information because its proprietary.

Oh you are really, really sucking it out of the ol' thumb now. You say Pass could be using Magical Mystical Measurements, secret and proprietary? It's amazing how people set up these guys on pedestals. FYI his key metrics for amps are THD vs Power, THD vs Frequency, and Frequency Response. One of many examples here.

Where is your evidence of these non-standard metrics, of which you intimate? Remember your commitment to the evidence-based approach? Any evidence whatosoever of "what I need to bear in mind"?

[Newman]

So, how easily or gullibly are we fooled by blithe claims? Well that question is core to the whole topic of this thread.

 

Someone says "I did a blind test." OK, here's a blind test for you.

 

"Hey Wayno. Go over there and move the clip lead from config 1 to config 2 while I listen. Don’t' tell me which is which."

 

"No worries Nel mate. OK, music is running. I am about to hook up. This is Aeeeeeeeeeeeee………….. And now Beeeeeeeeeeeee………….."

 

"Well I liked B better. Put on a different track, I want to be sure."

 

"OK here we go again. Aeeeeeeeeeeeee………….. And now Beeeeeeeeeeeee………….."

 

"Yeah definitely B. B is better."

 

"OK Nel, you picked config 1 with blind testing."

 

"Well, that's pretty convincing, Wayno. I'm gonna build config 1 into my new $10k preamp."

 

Remember, 'Nel' in our story willingly confesses that he has, decades ago, given up the dry and complex approach to hifi and now lives for the fun of simplicity and cleverness as a pure pursuit. You think he is going to take all the fun out of his whole approach by doing properly controlled testing? I'm not so easily fooled. I say prove it. My money is on the above scenario. Which, by the way, doesn't work.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Newman said:

So, how easily or gullibly are we fooled by blithe claims? Well that question is core to the whole topic of this thread.

 

Someone says "I did a blind test." OK, here's a blind test for you.

 

"Hey Wayno. Go over there and move the clip lead from config 1 to config 2 while I listen. Don’t' tell me which is which."

 

"No worries Nel mate. OK, music is running. I am about to hook up. This is Aeeeeeeeeeeeee………….. And now Beeeeeeeeeeeee………….."

 

"Well I liked B better. Put on a different track, I want to be sure."

 

"OK here we go again. Aeeeeeeeeeeeee………….. And now Beeeeeeeeeeeee………….."

 

"Yeah definitely B. B is better."

 

"OK Nel, you picked config 1 with blind testing."

 

"Well, that's pretty convincing, Wayno. I'm gonna build config 1 into my new $10k preamp."

 

Remember, 'Nel' in our story willingly confesses that he has, decades ago, given up the dry and complex approach to hifi and now lives for the fun of simplicity and cleverness as a pure pursuit. You think he is going to take all the fun out of his whole approach by doing properly controlled testing? I'm not so easily fooled. I say prove it. My money is on the above scenario. Which, by the way, doesn't work.

Always remember your typical Audiophile is designed by nature to suck the fun out of listening to fantastic equipment and the Music. It is almost impossible to break through these boundaries (egos). 

 

With all due respect of coarse 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Guest

[LHC]

53 minutes ago, Newman said:

Oh you are really, really sucking it out of the ol' thumb now. You say Pass could be using Magical Mystical Measurements, secret and proprietary? It's amazing how people set up these guys on pedestals. FYI his key metrics for amps are THD vs Power, THD vs Frequency, and Frequency Response. One of many examples here.

Where is your evidence of these non-standard metrics, of which you intimate? Remember your commitment to the evidence-based approach? Any evidence whatosoever of "what I need to bear in mind"?

 

Personal insult noted and report to the Mod.

 

His non-standard metrics refer to his work done in the subjective areas that have engineering limits. That Stereophile interview cited a quote from his official Pass Lab brochure, a copy can be see here (http://www.renohifi.com/Pass/pass_xs_brochure_2014d.pdf). 

 

This is the larger quote from the brochure:

"In a subjective arena where engineering has limitations, it is extremely helpful if you can recognize what you want when you hear it. If you have an example of the sound you are looking for, there is great advantage. Because this sonic quality was so striking, it became easier to discover what modifications to the circuit would make it go away, and by the process of varying the design and listening to the result, Pass was able to objectively identify the qualities of the sound—information which remains proprietary. He began to alter the circuits of the prototype Concept Amp to bring out these qualities. In the end, a new output stage topology was chosen using power Mosfets with new values of single-ended and push-pull bias. A small amount of feedback was employed around the output stage."

 

Pass also elaborated about this approach in the Stereophile magazine (linked in my earlier post). By 'proprietary', I take that to mean he has not shared this with you or anyone else. By 'objectively' I take that to mean some form of measurement is possible. 

 

So there you go, I have supplied the evidence and back up my posts. You may not agree with any of this evidence, and you are free to think whatever you like. It can't take away the fact that I remain 'evidence based' where possible. 

 

 

[LHC]

On 1/22/2018 at 4:44 PM, Newman said:

 

• All his comments and opinions on sonics apply to sighted listening. By now this should be a 'QED' statement.

Your original claim.

1 hour ago, Newman said:

You think he is going to take all the fun out of his whole approach by doing properly controlled testing? I'm not so easily fooled. I say prove it. My money is on the above scenario. Which, by the way, doesn't work.

Your original claim is that all of his opinions are formed from sighted listening. This is your usually responses when presented with information that you don't agree with - i.e. they must have came from sighted listening, and therefore not worthy of further considerations. Clearly that 2016 CNET report said Pass does frequent blind testing to guide his approach, that is evidence enough to dispel your claim he relies only on sighted listening. QED

 

It may be true that the blind testing method Pass uses fall a bit short of a properly controlled testing method, I don't know enough to say. But that was not your original claim, which remains completely wrong and not evidence based. If you have doubts about his blind testing method, that would be a separate discussion. 

 

 

 

[sir sanders zingmore]

31 minutes ago, LHC said:

 

Personal insult noted and report to the Mod.

 

His non-standard metrics refer to his work done in the subjective areas that have engineering limits. That Stereophile interview cited a quote from his official Pass Lab brochure, a copy can be see here (http://www.renohifi.com/Pass/pass_xs_brochure_2014d.pdf). 

 

This is the larger quote from the brochure:

"In a subjective arena where engineering has limitations, it is extremely helpful if you can recognize what you want when you hear it. If you have an example of the sound you are looking for, there is great advantage. Because this sonic quality was so striking, it became easier to discover what modifications to the circuit would make it go away, and by the process of varying the design and listening to the result, Pass was able to objectively identify the qualities of the sound—information which remains proprietary. He began to alter the circuits of the prototype Concept Amp to bring out these qualities. In the end, a new output stage topology was chosen using power Mosfets with new values of single-ended and push-pull bias. A small amount of feedback was employed around the output stage."

 

Pass also elaborated about this approach in the Stereophile magazine (linked in my earlier post). By 'proprietary', I take that to mean he has not shared this with you or anyone else. By 'objectively' I take that to mean some form of measurement is possible. 

 

So there you go, I have supplied the evidence and back up my posts. You may not agree with any of this evidence, and you are free to think whatever you like. It can't take away the fact that I remain 'evidence based' where possible. 

 

 

I would suggest that marketing brochures are not a great source of real evidence. 

 

[LHC]

2 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

I would suggest that marketing brochures are not a great source of real evidence. 

 

 

In a broad and general sense, I tend to agree with you. We discussed this here before, sometimes it is hard to tell if they were written by marketing or by engineers (or physicists in Pass case). 

 

But in this particular case, the Stereophile interviewer (himself a physics student) quoted from the brochure and specifically asked Nelson Pass to clarify and explain what that quote was all about. Pass did a lengthy explanation of the concept, which gave weight to what was printed in the brochure. (the cynics may argue he was just protecting his marketing guys )

[Satanica]

Until the so called "blind testing" of Pass can be validated, then he must rely on sighted testing. We sit waiting...

[sir sanders zingmore]

10 hours ago, LHC said:

 

In a broad and general sense, I tend to agree with you. We discussed this here before, sometimes it is hard to tell if they were written by marketing or by engineers (or physicists in Pass case). 

 

But in this particular case, the Stereophile interviewer (himself a physics student) quoted from the brochure and specifically asked Nelson Pass to clarify and explain what that quote was all about. Pass did a lengthy explanation of the concept, which gave weight to what was printed in the brochure. (the cynics may argue he was just protecting his marketing guys )

I don't see any reference to stereophile in the brochure (possible I missed it or perhaps misinterpreted what you are saying)

[Satanica]

12 hours ago, LHC said:

Pass also elaborated about this approach in the Stereophile magazine (linked in my earlier post). By 'proprietary', I take that to mean he has not shared this with you or anyone else. By 'objectively' I take that to mean some form of measurement is possible.

Seeing as though you're presenting this as evidence of objectiveness, is this referring to ear measurement of the blind testing variety and/or machine based measurement?

If you're presenting this as evidence then surely you must absolutely know the answer.

And if this is referring to machine based measurement only, then absolutely no evidence has been presented that Pass uses valid blind testing procedures for ear based measurement.

Edited January 25, 2018 by Satanica

[Newman]

11 hours ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

I would suggest that marketing brochures are not a great source of real evidence. 

 

Droll understatement indeed! Anyone using a marketing brochure to 'prove' me wrong about something has already lost the argument. The actual words in that brochure are spectacularly nonsensical and mythologistical, too, so every extra line from it makes me feel more confident and comfortable. The use of the word 'objective' in the middle of it is hilarious. The brochure has this whispered fireside intimacy about it that reminds me of David Attenborough at his peak: "And here (I must whisper at this point so as not to disturb) we chance upon the Mystical Designer in his den. We are so priveliged; it is rare to be permitted a peek by these shy creatures. See how diligently he solders and listens, solders and listens. Only this special breed is able to objectively identify those subjective qualities that superordinate the inherent limitations of engineering."

 

Really. I repeat my concern here (final para) and here (first para) about gullibility. I am prone to it, we all are. Vigilance will prevail. Gullible acceptance, however, is the short cut to that ol' rabbit hole.

 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2018 by Newman

[Guest scumbag]

8 hours ago, Newman said:

Droll understatement indeed! Anyone using a marketing brochure to 'prove' me wrong about something has already lost the argument. The actual words in that brochure are spectacularly nonsensical and mythologistical, too, so every extra line from it makes me feel more confident and comfortable. The use of the word 'objective' in the middle of it is hilarious. The brochure has this whispered fireside intimacy about it that reminds me of David Attenborough at his peak: "And here (I must whisper at this point so as not to disturb) we chance upon the Mystical Designer in his den. We are so priveliged; it is rare to be permitted a peek by these shy creatures. See how diligently he solders and listens, solders and listens. Only this special breed is able to objectively identify those subjective qualities that superordinate the inherent limitations of engineering."

 

Really. I repeat my concern here (final para) and here (first para) about gullibility. I am prone to it, we all are. Vigilance will prevail. Gullible acceptance, however, is the short cut to that ol' rabbit hole.

 

 

 

Breathing stress away

Here's a breathing technique, recommended by NHS Choices, which I find effective. You will get the most benefit if you make it part of your daily routine.

You can do it standing, sitting or lying - whatever is the most relaxing.

• Start by breathing in as deeply as you can, through your nose, without forcing it, to a count of five
• Then, gently exhale, through your mouth, to a count of five
• Keep breathing in through your nose and out through your mouth - steadily
• Keep doing this for three to five minutes

[LHC]

10 hours ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

I don't see any reference to stereophile in the brochure (possible I missed it or perhaps misinterpreted what you are saying)

 

9 hours ago, Satanica said:

Seeing as though you're presenting this as evidence of objectiveness, is this referring to ear measurement of the blind testing variety and/or machine based measurement?

If you're presenting this as evidence then surely you must absolutely know the answer.

And if this is referring to machine based measurement only, then absolutely no evidence has been presented that Pass uses valid blind testing procedures for ear based measurement.

 

Let me see if I could answer your posts together. The use of the word 'objectively' in the brochure could mean a range of things; my assumption were that it refers to a way for Pass to consistently determine what sounds good, in a repeatable fashion. (my assumption could be wrong, naturally) As to how he measures this, I have little idea. Since it is proprietary information, it would be illegal for me to know this. 

 

The link to the Stereophile interview is here (again) https://www.stereophile.com/content/nelson-pass-circuit-topology-and-end-science-page-2

 

This is what the interviewer asked Nelson Pass: 

"Austin: In the brochure for the Pass Labs Xs-series amplifiers, there's a discussion of the influence of your First Watt SIT experiments on the development of the Xs series, via the "concept amps" you were working on earlier this decade. A key to your design process, apparently, was the subjectively excellent and easily heard sound of the SIT amps. You were, as the brochure says, "able to objectively identify the qualities of the sound—information which remains proprietary." As a former scientist and current subjective reviewer, I find this very interesting. Is there more you can say about "objectively" identifying "qualities" of sound?"

 

Nelson Pass addressed this question of the brochure sentence using the example of how he designed his SIT and X amps. (I won't cut-paste his whole response here, its in the article). Note that Pass did not avoid the question, or try to downplay that sentence. He backed it up using a concert example, without giving proprietary information away. This validate the brochure information as credible and true; if you question the brochure, then you've questioned the man himself. 

 

In his response Pass said: "There was a consistent subjective observation that there was a difference not only with the level of second harmonic, but phase also." This is exactly what I tried to described in an earlier post - science is about finding that consistent and repeatable thing, within a sea of subjectivity. Once you have found it, then you can study it and make use of it in an objectively manner. It is not always possible to determine what this 'thing' is a priori from the known objective knowledge, and this is why he referred to what he does as "art". 

[Guest scumbag]

22 hours ago, LHC said:

Your original claim.

Your original claim is that all of his opinions are formed from sighted listening. This is your usually responses when presented with information that you don't agree with - i.e. they must have came from sighted listening, and therefore not worthy of further considerations. Clearly that 2016 CNET report said Pass does frequent blind testing to guide his approach, that is evidence enough to dispel your claim he relies only on sighted listening. QED

 

It may be true that the blind testing method Pass uses fall a bit short of a properly controlled testing method, I don't know enough to say. But that was not your original claim, which remains completely wrong and not evidence based. If you have doubts about his blind testing method, that would be a separate discussion. 

 

 

 

 

"On listening methods and blind testing: "I can't tell what's going on using a switcher, especially if a guy is standing over me, but if I put an amplifier in a known system and live with it for a bit, I can form a reliable opinion."
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/nelson-pass-seminar-cas6#BzfLZHdoEgCtjr58.99"

Edited January 25, 2018 by scumbag

[Newman]

Classic, and expected.
[emoji16]

[LHC]

20 minutes ago, scumbag said:

 

"On listening methods and blind testing: "I can't tell what's going on using a switcher, especially if a guy is standing over me, but if I put an amplifier in a known system and live with it for a bit, I can form a reliable opinion."
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/nelson-pass-seminar-cas6#BzfLZHdoEgCtjr58.99"

 

Thank you for this. It is refreshing to see someone posting here who is willing to engage in constructive evidence based discussion. 

 

I went through that article, and unfortunately that was the only quote on the matter, and there no other elaboration. It does add one big piece to the puzzle, but I am not sure the puzzle is completed yet.

 

From the other stereophile interview Pass explicitly said he is aware of expectation bias and the seriousness of avoiding it. Since it is not possible to eliminate bias with sighted test, it could mean that he 'live with it for a bit' under blind testing condition. (this is exactly the type of single blind tests that Paul McGowan uses himself) As further evidence, this conjecture would agree with the CNET report that Pass frequently use blind tests to guide his work. So all the evidences presented so far does fit a consistent picture. 

 

 

[LHC]

Surely there has to be more information available about Nelsen Pass testing regime. The guy is a legend in this audio business for decades, and have shared so much of his IP with the DYI community. In all that time, did no one actually query him directly, and comprehensively, how he goes about testing his gears and design changes? Anyone? 

[Guest scumbag]

Actually this may help complete the puzzle:

http://www.renohifi.com/Pass/pass_x8_intro.htm

 

"The Pass Labs X.8 Amplifiers

 

Introduction

 

For many years there has been considerable faith that if we simply keep improving the measurements of components such as amplifiers then they will sound better.  Initially this was truly the case – equipment was sufficiently flawed from an objective standpoint that better measurements matched up with subjective experience.

 

At some level of objective quality there started to be a disconnect, and some audiophiles began to lose the faith.  One of the responses to this was to examine more exotic sources of distortion in the equipment while some others simply worked to continue to reduce the flaws that were already understood.  There's no doubt that some real progress resulted from these efforts, and now you can purchase products at reasonable prices which measure far better than the old stuff.

 

But the disconnect between the customer's perceptions and the measurements persists, and there have been cases of state-of-the-art engineering resulting in economic failure, apparently because people didn't care for the sound.

 

Well, of course you are dealing with people, and that will complicate any endeavor.  The customer wants what the customer wants.  I have heard arguments that audiophiles are irrational, that decisions are based on appearance or cost or advertising.  Certainly there is plenty of that, and there have been plenty of blind tests that have demonstrated that “audiophiles can't hear the difference”, at least in the context of that test.

 

But I don't think that's the whole story.  My experience is that under the right conditions the customer can often hear the difference, and his observations are not to be ignored.

 

First, it has to be acknowledged that the science of cognitive perception is still in its infancy, and the ear is not really a microphone and the brain is not a tape recorder.  The data we do have on this subject is a little like quantum mechanics – we have to change our view to make sense of the illusions and paradoxes that accompany the interpretation of sensory input.

 

With regard to amplifiers at least, I think we already have the measurement data in hand.  The problem is in our failure to interpret it with respect to human perception.

 

This puts some emphasis back on listening tests - extensive long-term tests with reliable listeners and familiar equipment and environments.  This is not a cheap and easy procedure.  Even assuming that the listener(s) really can hear, we still have the vagaries of individual taste, and not a large population of qualified listeners and systems.

 

In the end, even if we can design around the perceptions of a small qualified listening panel, we are still inevitably aiming at a minority audience in the real world.  That's OK with me – One percent of this market is still a lot of amplifiers.

 

The thing is, I don't think the audiophile wants technical perfection.  He wants to be happy.
 

Look at it this way:  In the market there are rows of bottled drinking water.  Some are contaminated with natural mineral content and carbonated, some have sugar-based substances added, some have been harvested from glaciers.  They all appear to be more expensive than gasoline.  Where is the pure distilled water?  Probably on the bottom shelf, possibly even elsewhere in the store.  It seems to be the least popular, even if it is cheaper than gasoline.

 

Since the release of the X.5 series seven years ago we began working on what has now become the X.8 amplifiers.  They embody everything we know, and while I can't divulge all the details, I can tell you about some things which might interest you."

 

 

 

[LHC]

Here is a blog page of Pass that may muddle up the puzzle a bit more.

https://www.passdiy.com/project/articles/arch-nemesis

I lifted the following from that page.

 

"Having worked out some circuits, I acquired an assortment of transformers and began evaluating their performance with an eye toward picking the best one. They represented a wide range of cost and materials, and some clearly measured better than others, but when I listened to them I found myself drawn to the sound of one that didn't measure so well.

The dissonance that measures bad/sounds good created called for an unbiased test. So I built two identical amplifiers except for transformers – the very expensive one which measured best, and the unpretentious one that didn't measure so well. I packed them off for a reliable blind test with Joe Sammut, who has 10,000 hours more listening time than me.

“This one is really musical, and that one is not very good.” Well, that's another data point – a transformer that measures better loses to one that does not." 

 

So what we have learned here is this

• It is implied that Pass used sighted listening to compare parts. He actually recognised it as biased testing! 
• He correlate his listening with measurements, and is not blinded by subjectivity
• He also recognise the need for unbiased testing, and does conduct blind tests with the help of a friend. The result of blind testing is another data point that he will use.

Further down the pager we have this:

" I have a very scientific procedure for evaluating the sound – I sit and listen to whatever I like for as long as I want. I sincerely try to get the best out of each thing tested and usually it takes a couple days of part time effort, and inevitably an impression emerges into words . Mostly I find myself looking for sound that relaxes me while still presenting a lot of information."

 

Now words fail me, I am not sure what to make of the statement in bold. Maybe it was a satirical joke , similar to many that he has sprinkled all over his writings. 

[Guest scumbag]

Yes that was his usual self depricating humour. Do a Google search for Nelson pass brown note. 

I think what we have here is a man who understands how to walk the line between objectivism and subjectivism. At least that's what I tell myself every time I listen to my xa30.8.

[sir sanders zingmore]

I can't even remember anymore why we are talking about Pass ...

Back on topic though, what about the myth of the "golden eared" audiophile?