Jump to content

edwinr

Regulars
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3626

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by edwinr

    Return to the realm of La Scala

    in 2-Channel Home Audio

    Posted

    I like to run my Belles full range. I have found that integration with a sub works way better if the sub's rolloff starts around 40Hz - not higher as some seem to like. By the time the sub reaches around 50 or 60Hz, it isn't outputting that much, thereby not interfering with the La Scala's beautiful horn loaded bass response. Another thing, I have heard some La Scala/Belle subwoofer combinations where the sub is just turned up way too loud, thus drowning out the poor La Scala's low frequency response. This is way uncool. The sub should be adjusted so that it extends the La Scala's low frequency response, not dominate it.

    In need of screen and projector recommendations

    in Home Theater

    Posted

    I currently use a Panasonic PT-AE700 720p projector with a 92 inch pull down screen and a Play Station 3 as the blu-ray player. I have had this setup for 4 years with the Play Station a more recent addition. I run the HT audio signal through my tube amp and then the Belles. My HT is 2-channel only. On blu-ray the Panasonic is outstanding - much better than dvd. I have the projector set on Cinema 2 with the lamp set to economy. I'm up to 2100 hours and I should get another 1500 hours or so. My room is partially light controlled (curtains etc) as this really helps with picture quality. The new breed of 1080p projectors are also very good. But I reckon very soon projectors will come out with LEDs. Instead of only getting 3000 0r 4000 hours or so, the LED equipped projectors will run for around 70,000 hours. So you will be able to have them on all the time and not worry about replacing the lamp every so often. You should be able to find a good used Panasonic or similar 720p projector for little money. You may have to buy a new lamp. Panasonic has upgraded their 720p models several times since I bought mine. My model was replaced with the PT-AE900 and then the PT-AE100u and the current model is the PT-AE200u. Good luck.

    Return to the realm of La Scala

    in 2-Channel Home Audio

    Posted

    I used my Belles for about 3 years without a sub. In a good room angled in and only a foot or so from the wall, the La Scalas will sound fine. They produce most orchestral, jazz and light rock without any need for a sub. Actually a lot of heavy rock doesn't have that much low bass anyway. I added a budget Klipsch sub last year, just to try it out. I was very pleased with the sound and I haven't felt the need to upgrade my sub. Most subs benefit from positioning, fine tuning of output, and crossover adjustment. You can make a budget sub sound like you paid much more money for it. You can also make a very expensive sub sound like cr*p.

    NO test is vallid unless it is Doubble Blind Test (DBT

    in 2-Channel Home Audio

    Posted

    What I find really curious, is the perceived difference between audiophiles; people who are musical professionals; and, those that just love music. Do audiophiles listen more to their equipment? Why are many professional musicians happy to listen to music on budget stereo systems? And those that just love music, are happy to listen on a boom box (my wife, for example). I know there's a lot of cross pollination. Many audiophile love music too. Some musicians own nice sound systems. I reckon only those who have trained their hearing will benefit from DBTs. Sit my wife in a DBT and there's no way she could distinguish between one similar amplifier to another. It's only if you compare a big speaker with a small one would she make comment.

    Hope I am not Going to be Sick........Good Bye Belle's

    in Home Theater

    Posted

    You think you feel bad at the moment? Just wait until you actually pack and ship the Belles to the new owner. It's hard, but you'll get over it. It's been around 5 years since I sold my old Klipschorns. I'm kinda over it now... mostly. Sometimes though, I wake up in a cold sweat thinking about what I did. I turned to drink for a while, but that didn't help much. I must have made my analyst a rich man. He was the type of guy who called a spade a spade. He said he gets some real problem cases, but I was one of the worst he'd ever dealt with. He was the one who told me that the only way out of the darkness was to buy another pair of Klipschorns. I couldn't find a pair so I bought some new Belles. That made me feel a little better. I only see the analyst once a week now. And the store that I sold the Klipschorns to has shut up shop and moved interstate. I guess all those slogans I painted over his windows on a daily basis finally got to him... [8o|]

    NO test is vallid unless it is Doubble Blind Test (DBT

    in 2-Channel Home Audio

    Posted

    The Underlying Flaw in All AB-style Testing

    Every form of comparative listening test such as AB, AB/X and DBT suffers one catastrophic flaw that renders the results close to useless. The flaw exists in spite of the overwhelming scientific evidence confirming the flaw. What's wrong is the assumptions used about listening and perception. The model which anchors comparative testing is that human perception, and ultimately preference, is divided into discrete channels much like independent files or directories of some hard disk recorder in the brain. And as such, the test attempts to isolate the "sound channel" from all others by using a black box model of testing.

    Black box means the entire sound producing mechanism is unseen and unknown ("behind the curtain"), and only the output (sound) is isolated and fed to the subjects. This concept of the brain is wrong and is nothing at all related to how perception works. So the results of any such test have extremely limited use. DBT testing is a cornerstone of science, and is very useful. We get most of our medicine through that process. But you have to interpret the results in a meaningful way. Used in listening tests, the conclusions that are generally reported are of narrow use when it comes to building a home sound system.

    Perception is Selective

    First of all the brain is not a hard drive recorder for perceptions. All inputs to the brain must be heavily filtered, otherwise you would freeze up from overload. What you are aware of consciously, is perhaps one billionth of the total perception information being streamed into to the brain. This billionth portion is not always the same portion. It will vary depending on total circumstance, which includes all internal and external stimuli. If you get this sensory stream now "ABCDEFGHIJK" you might be conscious of just "CFK". If you get that stream later, your may be aware of "ADG". So, any attempt to form a consistent judgment about the input stream is skewed by this selectivity.

    Perception is Entangled

    The "brain as tape recorder" metaphor has to be ditched. It is no such thing, and doesn't in any way model a tape recorder. Nuerons are cells that are entangled not only with each other, but entangled with the external environment. It is NOT equivelent to a "bit" in digital terminology as many imagine. It is not per se a storage device. It is a massively complex intelligent machine by itself that is a microcosm of the entire human body. It is accepting thousands of signals and inputs and then making proteins and sending signals in response to inputs. Entanglement here, means that neurons are not divided up into discreet sound-neurons, sight-neurons, odor-neurons, touch-neurons. All of our senses "mix" because the neuron network is entangled to do just that. Furthermore, the neuron, like all cells, is accepting EXTERNAL signals from the envrionment, which cause changes to the neuron's output signalling and protein making.

    With this model, it is now clear that when you "listen" to a stereo at home the judgement you make about the "sound quality" is the result of an entangled process of perception that includes more than sound pressure at the ear. That process will include a multitude of inputs which are not sound. The floor pressing up on your feet, the slight draft in the room, the many odors, the lighting conditions, the ambient temperature, the ambient noise, your internal emotional state, your hydration level, your hunger level, pain level, and literally thousands more conditional inputs to the brain. There is no brain in which you can perfectly isolate discrete phenomena from all other phenomena. It simply doesn't function that way. (Yoga is the practice of attempting to do just that very thing.)

    "Sounds Better" - What Does That Mean?

    Sounds better is the qualitative value we use most commonly to engage in the hobby. We buy X because it sounds better. We do Y to the system because it sounds better. We hear things and proclaim, A sounds better than B. How do we arrive at the qualitative judgement we call "sounds better?" It can only happen through the entangled process of perception. We have no other tool in our human toolbox. We are incapable of shutting off all inputs except for the "sound channel," and then doing an internal string comparison of two sound streams. This is what the DBT testers attempt to do. We are incapable of that because we are not made in that fashion. There are no equivelents to recorders, oscilloscope and voltmeters in the brain. It is invalid to suggest that such homologues exist.

    Try this. Listen to your stereo for half an hour, and then take onboard some mood elevating substance like alcohol, pot, X or the drug of your choice. Nearly always the system will "sound better." Clearly your system didn't change, you changed your inputs to the neuron network. You added a new chemical stimulus to be integrated with your other perceptions in your brain. Your new judgement about the sound quality is a synthesis which now includes the drug inter-action. You have no choice, that's how it works. You would have no means of "ignoring the action of the drug" to decide about sound quality.

    That's an example of putting a very heavy thumb on the scales. We expect those results. But let's try a lighter touch. See if this rings a bell. You are looking at your system and see that after a year it has become dusty, disorganized, cables dangling here and there, dirt on everything - untidy. You get disgusted and clean it all up. You clean the equipment, the shelves, the glass. You tie up all the dangling wires and cables and make everything neat and tidy. You polish the speakers, clean the cathair off the grill and so on. Now, you sit down to listen and suddenly it "sounds better." Why? Because it looks like it should, and you can not isolate that "good feeling" from what you are hearing. Your neuron net won't let you do that. It works exactly the same as the mood altering drug.

    Inputs change perception. This isn't a hypothesis, it is a fact. And the range of inputs is far, far greater than we can usually know at any time. The body internally is generating thousands of signals about its own condition. The external environment is broadcasting thousand more into your cells. Your trillion cells are individual intelligences reacting to all these inputs snd signals. Then the brain integrates this into judgements as you demand it to do so. "Sounds better" is one such judgement that arises from all this input.

    So, in our normal actions of the hobby, what influences the "sounds better" judgement? Here are a few well understood motivations for preferences of consumer goods:

    Aesthetics

    Status of the brand

    Physical attributes like size, color, weight even odor

    Personal emotional baggage (e.g. Grandpa drove Buicks)

    Past experience with brand

    Expert opinions

    Peer pressure

    Utility (specs are better)

    Cost

    Now, that's a small portion of the real list. But just those alone form an amazing part of our judgement. What needs to be understood is that these are REAL inputs to our conclusion that "A sounds better than B." They are not parts that can be hacked off and isolated when we make real-world judgements. "Feeling better does make things better." That is not a hypothesis, it is a fact.

    In DBT testing, they try to hack-off as many of those "external biases" as possible in a hopeless attempt to find meaning to isolating your "sound channel" - your imagined tape recorder. People regularly fail such DBT testing because in truth, it isn't how their perception systems operate when they demonstrate preference. The black box model has no actual purpose outside the DBT test itself. It simply is unrelated to how people form judgements about audio gear.

    Even the testing design itself is physically flawed. The basis is this: Stimulus Stream A is given to the subject at time = T1. Then at time = T2 Stimulus Stream B is delivered to the subject, and at time = T3 the subject must decide if A was equal to B, or if A was not equal to B. You don't need any audio equipment at all to show how easily people fail this test. You can perform the test on everyone you meet. Do this:

    Recite the two streams aloud, one after the other, to any subject you choose, and ask them if they are the same or different.

    Stream A: Kentucky mary george iowa henry alaska lanny albert maine robert

    Stream B: Kentucky mary georgia henry iowa alaska manny albert maine robert

    Now, this is a very simple set of very short inputs. Nothing near as complicated at listening to a passage from Sgt. Pepper. This sample has a distortion figure of around 5% between A and B. That should be totally easy to detect. And yet, I think you'll record no better than coin toss odds of right answers if you ask enough subjects. The brain is simply not a recorder in the sense that such tests imply.

    A famous test of visual perception is the Simons-Chabris "gorilla film." In which subjects were told to watch a one minute film and count the passes made with a basketball between players. During the film, a woman dressed in gorilla suit walks into the center of the film, waves to the camera for 5-seconds and walks off. More than half the subjects who watch this film never see the gorilla! The brain is not a video recorder, nor is it an audio recorder.

    When subjects fail DBT testing are they simply failing to see the gorilla, or is there no gorilla to be seen? The problem is that people's real-world preferences of audio gear is generically reported as "sounding better," but in fact sound is but one attribute in the entire stack of contributing inputs to the preference.

    If all gear was DBT tested, and you bought the system of gear which tested best, would you think it "sounds better" than a system you selected by your own regular method? If they delivered that system and it turned out to be an $100 LG receiver with a $29 Samsung CD player, and speakers made by Bose - let's just say - would you happily ditch your Khorns and monster amps and such? A few people are going to be stubborn and say "yes of course", but I think they would be a small minority.

    DBT testing of audio gears can tell you a little bit about how perception works in the human brain: "Big news - people have trouble comparing input streams displaced by time!" It can not tell you anything about what audio gears you would enjoy having in your system.

    DrWho--

    Here's the post in which I answered your question about generic stereos.

    I'm quoting this whole post because Mark (and I mean this most sincerely) you write really, really well. I think you've missed your true calling in life. Maybe you should write for an online magazine or something.

    NO test is vallid unless it is Doubble Blind Test (DBT

    in 2-Channel Home Audio

    Posted

    Yeah. I wonder about Snyder. His 'horrible writing skills' are just too good to be true...

    So you noticed that, too. He certainly did stir up the pot with the DBT thing, though, and inspired some informative discourse, even if none came from him.

    No disrespect meant to Snyder. If that's his forum persona, then so be it. [;)]

    P.S. I just love comparing one speaker with another, or one amplifier with another. Sometimes I fool myself into thinking one sounds better. But when the resulting comparison is like night and day (for example when a higher powered tube amp drives my Belles better than a lower powered one) then even a cloth eared enthusiast like me has to bow to the obvious...

    P.P.S. What did I mean by the above? I have no idea; it just sounded good when I typed it.

    NO test is vallid unless it is Doubble Blind Test (DBT

    in 2-Channel Home Audio

    Posted

    The difference in sound between two similar pieces of equipment is very difficult to discern, and most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference in a DBT. Being perfectly honest, I would tend to choose the piece of equipment that looks better and is popular. Why? It's easy to sell if I don't like it. And anyway, I get more more satisfaction looking at my Hog in the garage rather than some yamaharley - even though they both do the same job...

×
×
  • Create New...