blakey72 Posted October 28, 2012 Author Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) On 28/10/2012 at 12:25 PM, Simon Wright said: Just FYI I have you on ignore because I find your style of discussion to be pointless (and because your avatar is a perfect example of why Whirlpool has no avatars). I'm sure kajak12 doesn't think what he say's is pointless and who are you to say it is? And I'm sure he's shakin in his boots Simon. Don't go putting pins near your head, it will explode. You really have some tabs on yourself. Edited October 28, 2012 by blakey72
Guest Muon Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 I thought the 'no avatars" thing was a budget constraint, not someone exercising control issues Woops! I'll be on ignore soon too
Jason Sangwin Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) On 28/10/2012 at 9:40 PM, blakey72 said: I'm sure kajak12 doesn't think what he say's is pointless and who are you to say it is? And I'm sure he's shakin in his boots Simon. Don't go putting pins near your head, it will explode. You really have some tabs on yourself. I agree with him actually. It's one thing to have an opinion of what you like and enjoy your own journey. It's another to be condescending towards another persons opinion and offer no proof to back up your comments. For example, he claims his system is for 'ears' and tuned by ears because he has experience listening to live instruments. 1. I am pointing out that he will not be able to do such a thing with accuracy because neurological study proves the improbability of such a feat. I also backed that up with empirical evidence from multiple sources just to prove that what I believed was recognized by the greater scientific community. 2. I fully agree that he would be tuning his system for 'human ears' - namely his own. I again supported this claim using the same empirical evidence. In return you get him casting a stone such as 'I left kindergarten audio' ... Backed by nothing, and I'm sorry but "I've been doing this for a long time" doesn't cut it. Just because you have done something for a long time does not mean you have done it correctly for that period of time. Time is a poor metric to measure competency by. Research has shown that being able to recall information is notable to be taught over time and our memory does not work like that anyway because it reconstructs information - it doesn't recall information. 3. When presented with evidence, it is simply ignored and predictably ( because the scientific community do have an understanding of psychology through empirical research) he starts casting condescending remarks to make himself feel better. This is supported by my link above regarding Cognitive Dissonance in the form of the Belief Disconfirmation Paradigm. Using the above example as support, I would say his input has done nothing to contribute to the debate and I agree it has been meaningless. Edited October 28, 2012 by Jason Sangwin 1
blakey72 Posted October 28, 2012 Author Posted October 28, 2012 Both you and Simon are wrong IMO. Experience means everything. Generally if you've been doing something for a long time you are good at it. You learn from your mistakes and from others. You don't just come out of uni take your tools of the trade and know it all. He casts condescending remarks because he is fed up with Simon thinking he knows it all when there's plenty of people that know more or have more experience. If anyone's condescending it's Simon, he looks down on everyone like he's something special.
Gee Emm Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 On 27/10/2012 at 3:14 AM, kajak12 said: My room is not a problem my front end is finished my reference is live unamplified music cello,violin,piano etc oh i do use a blanket on my lcd tv while listening. So, for all intents & purposes, that blanket would be a room treatment...! Which goes some way to rectify a problem, that you don't have? Graham 1
Jason Sangwin Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) On 28/10/2012 at 10:49 PM, blakey72 said: Both you and Simon are wrong IMO. Experience means everything. Generally if you've been doing something for a long time you are good at it. You learn from your mistakes and from others. You don't just come out of uni take your tools of the trade and know it all. He casts condescending remarks because he is fed up with Simon thinking he knows it all when there's plenty of people that know more or have more experience. If anyone's condescending it's Simon, he looks down on everyone like he's something special. You can learn things through repetition, good pactice and poor practice - that is not the debate. You can not learn to memorize and recall a waveform with such accuracy that it could be used as a reference - it will therefore be a reconstruction. I do not have an issue with tuning a system by ear, I have an issue with the poo pooing of science by people who think they have an ear we can all use as a reference. Sorry but our minds do not work that way, please see the posted links above. You will be tuning the system to your preference and that is perfectly normal. I always state that you ears are the best tool to tell you what you prefer the sound of. Therefore, understanding the failability of your own ears gives you an appreciation of what you are working with. Edited October 28, 2012 by Jason Sangwin 1
Guest Muon Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) Woops... For Mr Happy. I would have thought It's a TV, not a room. The room contains a TV Edited October 28, 2012 by datafone
Gee Emm Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 G'day datafone IMO the principle is the same. The TV in the room needs an audio treatment (blanket) to reduce its negative impact on the sound/image whatever... This is the same process in treating a room. In simple terms, you absord or diffuse the sound which is having a negative impact on the sound/image whatever... Whether you measure with a microphone or your ears is another discussion. The end result is the same, you are treating the room (and the things in it, coz they make up the room), to reduce any negative impact the room (and its contents) have on the sound/image whatever... It's a room treatment, plain & simple & obviously worth doing. Graham
Guest Muon Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 Hay Graham Sorry, my response was more tongue in cheek. Got carried away with the current feeling of the thread. Cheers Ian
Cafad Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 On 28/10/2012 at 1:53 PM, Jason Sangwin said: What is your conclusion of the testing with the tuned mass dampers ? (the 'Topper' by chance ?). Honest question. My comments available here. I noticed less of an effect than most but they definitely had a positive effect, IMO anyway.
Jason Sangwin Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 On 28/10/2012 at 11:47 PM, Cafad said: My comments available here. I noticed less of an effect than most but they definitely had a positive effect, IMO anyway. Cool thanks. I'm always interested in reading reviews done by people, 'll check it out
adprom Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) On 28/10/2012 at 10:49 PM, blakey72 said: Both you and Simon are wrong IMO. Experience means everything. Generally if you've been doing something for a long time you are good at it. You learn from your mistakes and from others. You don't just come out of uni take your tools of the trade and know it all. He casts condescending remarks because he is fed up with Simon thinking he knows it all when there's plenty of people that know more or have more experience. If anyone's condescending it's Simon, he looks down on everyone like he's something special. Experience only means something if the data from the experience is validated and objective. Subjective experience can be in fact worse than useless. Experience is very valid and yes it is valuable to learn from your own mistakes and mistakes of others - however you need to make sure that the data set you are using as the basis of assumptions is actually valid. If that data is based on a subjective process, then you need some way to verify that. Scientific method 101. When people choose to ignore the very science that made audio reproduction possible, then it is rather difficult to take them seriously. Then again that's just me being an Engineer with that view... On 28/10/2012 at 2:41 PM, kajak12 said: If your ever in perth i can demo for you just what isolation cones under my amp/dac and transport can do blind if you like (i will have spare batteries for hearing aids if needed) Isolation cones (or as mentioned they couple more than isolate) came from vinyl where minute vibrations would have an impact on the signal as it is a mechanical process. Isolation cones are to solve a mechanical issue and where physical mechanics have a method of feeding back into the system. This was certainly true with LPs, a good idea for speakers and to a lesser extent CD players/transports as vibration could induce jitter. For electronic components such as a DAC or Amplifier though, there is no mechanical effect and it is a waste of time. Of course, no one has ever come up with a proven difference, via ABX testing under controlled conditions. Subjectivity where there is a scientific verification for it is fine. i.e. Speaker positioning and sound imaging by ear is a great example - a subjective process that works and can actually be backed up by scientific method. The problem is where people take subjective data which conflicts with objective data gathered via scientific process and conclude, incorrectly, the objective data must be incorrect in some way. "Tweaking" as it applies to a lot of audiophiles is everything that is wrong with this mentality. Believing that through some minor, inconsequential alteration - even though it is unrelated must have an effect and then through a subjective test, they verify that their hypothesis is true - regardless of what objective data may point to. This ends in weird stuff like audio grade ethernet cables, cable stands/lifters all the way through to crystals. Edited October 29, 2012 by adprom 1
blakey72 Posted October 29, 2012 Author Posted October 29, 2012 On 29/10/2012 at 12:08 AM, adprom said: Experience only means something if the data from the experience is validated and objective. Subjective experience can be in fact worse than useless. Experience is very valid and yes it is valuable to learn from your own mistakes and mistakes of others - however you need to make sure that the data set you are using as the basis of assumptions is actually valid. If that data is based on a subjective process, then you need some way to verify that. Scientific method 101. Your a engineer, not a scientist. I've spent 9 years doing science degrees. We're looking at qualitative data here and it is valid. Many studies are based on qualitative data. And you really can't even mention the scientific method as this isn't even touching on it. You'd have to consider sample size, set stat. sig. parameters and bla bla bla the list goes on. Scientific method 100
rantan Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 On 28/10/2012 at 11:59 PM, Jason Sangwin said: Cool thanks. I'm always interested in reading reviews done by people, 'll check it out Hi Jason. Cafad is being very humble but he has been posting listening impressions of many integrated amplifiers that have passed through his system which have been very helpful and very popular. It is very informative for so many members. I understand that you and Simon have a different approach to audio than many here, but you may care to read some of the reviews to at least gain a perspective that some people here actually can determine sonic differences between amplifiers. This may be insufficiently rigorous in scientific terms but you may be aware of a word in the English language synergy. This word best describes the what occurs when components and their interaction bring about a result that is a pivotal factor for so many enthusiasts in choosing that combination of components,it is also one which is not readily explicable. I can see that you frequently refer to psychological principles, but with respect, you are using them in a somewhat pejorative sense given that your stated intention is to constructively inform and advise people about system and component choices. Also pejorative is your summary dismissal of people's hard won experience and efforts in the pursuit of this hobby. May I suggest that whilst you have a passion for science above all, and you are 100% entitled to espouse this approach, there are other completely valid approaches and nobody has a monopoly on wisdom? [ myself included ]. It is also slightly difficult to decipher your actual intent on this forum, you keep in a loop of mutual agreement and congratulatory responses with Simon as though this is some kind of campaign and really, the high five is not necessary everytime one of you posts something, that is best left to sports people celebrating a hard fought win against a strident opposition. Hopefully this forum is not a sporting contest or cage fighting. You post very little about music or enjoyment or passion and it seems that your intent is more didactic than instructional and as much as you would like to, you will never remove emotion from this hobby. I hope this does not offend as this is not my intention, just some observations on a very interesting thread. 3
Volunteer sir sanders zingmore Posted October 29, 2012 Volunteer Posted October 29, 2012 I consider myself to be more in the objectivist than the subjectivist camp. I see a lot of stuff out there that seems to me to be the snakiest of snake oil possible. The thing is, I have no truck with anyone whose journey takes them on a different path to mine. Most people make choices based on irrational preference every day of their lives (I know I do). Some people believe stuff that is, in my opinion, completely whacky. I'm talking about fundamental beliefs that inform how they run their lives - not just hifi. And, get this, they don't seem much worse off for it. It's hard to believe but they don't seem unhappy. So if someone chooses their hi-fi based on criteria that seem odd to me, why should I care..... why should you care either. Ask yourselves that. 4
adprom Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) On 29/10/2012 at 12:36 AM, blakey72 said: Your a engineer, not a scientist. I've spent 9 years doing science degrees. We're looking at qualitative data here and it is valid. Many studies are based on qualitative data. And you really can't even mention the scientific method as this isn't even touching on it. You'd have to consider sample size, set stat. sig. parameters and bla bla bla the list goes on. Scientific method 100 What point are you trying to make - because there is no logical point actually being made in that statement. We are talking about the process of transferring a signal from one location and reproducing sound.... This is different from the process of interpreting music which is qualitative. Reproducing sound is not. Spent 9 years doing science degrees... Poses more questions than answers really. Not sure what your implication about Engineering is - but I doubt you actually understand the methods and level of understanding a rigour needed judging by your responses on this topic. P.S. A quick search reveals "Animal Science" was your degree. Edited October 29, 2012 by adprom
rantan Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 On 29/10/2012 at 12:58 AM, adprom said: P.S. A quick search reveals "Animal Science" was your degree. This is waaay OT, but how were you able to discover that without personal details? I ask this in good faith, no flames please.
Paul Spencer Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 On 28/10/2012 at 10:49 PM, blakey72 said: Both you and Simon are wrong IMO. Experience means everything. Generally if you've been doing something for a long time you are good at it. You learn from your mistakes and from others. You don't just come out of uni take your tools of the trade and know it all. He casts condescending remarks because he is fed up with Simon thinking he knows it all when there's plenty of people that know more or have more experience. If anyone's condescending it's Simon, he looks down on everyone like he's something special. Experience means a great deal, but it's also something not easily measured. One person learns quickly and progresses. Another keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over. Some people gather friends around them who think exactly the same, pat them on the back and never question or challenge anything. It doesn't mean you are always right. Instead it means you lack the perspective of someone who will help you see what you are missing. It means you don't know what you don't know. Experience is not best measured in years. "Some people's minds are like concrete - all mixed up and permanently set." And as time progresses they simply fortify their opinions, becoming progressively more resistant to learning and any kind of critical feedback. Sometimes you have to ask yourself when was the last time you changed your mind about something you believed. If you find it hard to answer, then you have to ask if your mind has become brittle and fortified, or whether you have kept it malleable and open to learning by a healthy diet of curiosity and criticism. In what way is the discussion in here like a witch hunt? I see intelligent discussion going on with Jason, Simon and adprom bringing things to the table with some actual substance that others could learn from. On an audio forum of all places! *gasp* 1
Jason Sangwin Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering Engineering is the science, skill, and profession of acquiring and applying scientific, economic, social, and practical knowledge, in order to design and also build structures, machines, devices, systems, materials and processes.
adprom Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) On 29/10/2012 at 1:05 AM, rantan said: This is waaay OT, but how were you able to discover that without personal details? I ask this in good faith, no flames please. Very first search I tried, 5th link down. http://www.google.co...chrome&ie=UTF-8 Used to finding corporate intelligence about what people post online - hones searching skills to become very efficient and understanding how people behave. Very good for finding sources of corporate leaks amongst other things. Not my job - I just happen to be good at it and have been asked for assistance at times. Edited October 29, 2012 by adprom
Jason Sangwin Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 Rantan, to be honest I just like looking at reviews. There is no catch. I also do reviews which are a result of testing, that is part of my day to day work. I have tested for audible differences between HDMI cables, I have tested the Shunyata Research Darkfield cable elevators, I have tested differences between speakers / I build speakers ... I have tested and will test anything and I am extremely impartial to the result. I do not care where or how the difference is heard just as long as I can get an answer for my test and then move on. I love music, I have a very broad taste in music and I play it all the time anywhere and any place. Due to a friend being an opera singer I have only just started to be moved by that but otherwise just pick a genre and I will most likely like a few artists from it. My love for this industry is why I like looking at other people's reviews - I have been reading Johnny Darkos reviews for just over the past year and I have been looking at Paul Spencer's website for awhile as well - now I can check out what Calfad has to offer too. The more the merrier.
NIKO Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 On 28/10/2012 at 7:58 PM, datafone said: Yes, that's why they are called isolation devices Hello Some marketers know some people will believe anything .The best isolation footer's I found to have some merits were the Solid Tech feet ,but most of my gear is valve based . yassou
Guest Muon Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 On 29/10/2012 at 1:06 AM, Paul Spencer said: Experience means a great deal, but it's also something not easily measured. There is a hell of a lot that can't be measured with what is know and understood, so to only adhere to hard data means we are missing a lot.Personally I believe that measurements are very important and pretty much indispensable in design and troubleshooting, but It's not the be all.. and end all as some like to think, like Simon & Jason appear to. Just my view on it.
Guest Muon Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 On 29/10/2012 at 1:26 AM, NIKO said: Hello Some marketers know some people will believe anything .The best isolation footer's I found to have some merits were the Solid Tech feet ,but most of my gear is valve based . yassou Hi Niko...And some people will believe nothing at all, fixed thinking is one description, so is closed mindedness.
adprom Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 On 29/10/2012 at 1:27 AM, datafone said: Personally I believe that measurements are very important and pretty much indispensable in design and troubleshooting, but It's not the be all.. and end all as some like to think, like Simon & Jason appear to. Find me an Engineer who diagnoses a fault based on 'feel'. Actually, in designing an audio amplifier, measurements are anything. On 29/10/2012 at 1:27 AM, datafone said: There is a hell of a lot that can't be measured with what is know and understood, so to only adhere to hard data means we are missing a lot. The irony that this comment is made without basis.
Recommended Posts