• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Good read on "The Great Debate"

#141
One Drop said:
In 20 years we will be laughing at the crude conclusions we drew from our crude measuring devices.

Every new and more powerful device we invent to measure things changes our understanding of what constitutes our universe. We are still at a primitive state of understanding of what matter is and how it behaves, and our current descriptions of various particles will not stand in a few year's time. We can measure 1 photon, but do we know what a photon is constituted of? How many other smaller particles make up one, that behave in ways we have yet to imagine, never mind describe or measure?
Click to expand...
That's a good question. To think we have unlocked all the secrets of the universe is sheer arrogance, and that includes tube vs. SS.
 
#142
One Drop said:
Bill... are you familiar with anything similar to 'blind sight' in regards to our hearing?
Click to expand...
Far more than those who claim to have hearing that's only possible if their birth name was Kal-El. Acoustical engineers must by definition understand the underlying biology of how hearing works, and how easily it can be fooled.
In 20 years we will be laughing at the crude conclusions we drew from our crude measuring devices.
Click to expand...
Even the measuring devices of 50 years ago were an order of magnitude higher in accuracy than the human ear/brain. What we can be sure of is that 20 years from now Luddites who haven't got the slightest clue as to how measuring devices work will still be making nonsensical claims denying their worth.
 
#143
Just as a personal aside:
You can measure this and that via ever finer calibrated devices, but, we each have our own set of ears, biases, and preferences.
Measuring devices are useful for drawing certain relatively even and repeatable comparisions, but I'm pretty happy with letting my ears be my final personal arbiter.

YMMV, and you're certainly welcome to have different opinions and preferences about what's good and what's bad, for you and your prefs, your and needs. They don't have to effect what I like or find useful.
 
#144
billfitzmaurice said:
Far more than those who claim to have hearing that's only possible if their birth name was Kal-El. Acoustical engineers must by definition understand the underlying biology of how hearing works, and how easily it can be fooled.
Even the measuring devices of 50 years ago were an order of magnitude higher in accuracy than the human ear/brain. What we can be sure of is that 20 years from now Luddites who haven't got the slightest clue as to how measuring devices work will still be making nonsensical claims denying their worth.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that our senses can measure more accurately than the devices we have invented.

I do believe that we are still at a crude level of understanding as to what the underlying biology of how hearing (and all of our senses) works, though, at least at the neurological level.
 
#147
My argument is simply that we understand relatively little about how we experience the information that we do take in, in spite of the huge discoveries and advances of the last few centuries, and especially since we have begun to study the brain, which is only very recently and still only in its very infancy.
 
#149
One Drop said:
I do believe that we are still at a crude level of understanding as to what the underlying biology of how hearing (and all of our senses) works, though, at least at the neurological level.
Click to expand...
Pose that to an audiologist. How our hearing works is very well understood by those who've studied it. It's no more a mystery than differential calculus or classical Greek. But those are hardly intuitive either.
 
#150
bryan.worley said:
I live in an all artist building. Because I work on almost all of the musicians' gear, people toss things they come across my way. This paper was slid under my door last night. It's a good read on the tube vs. solid state topic. I enjoy the use of the scientific method throughout. Even though the testing was with guitars, I thought it a great read for all of us.
My intention isn't for an extension of the debate. Simply, to show what I thought to be a great example of double blind testing with regards to amps. Enjoy!

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

I have to agree, it is a great example of double blind testing.

Every one who participated in it had the opportunity to do the same as what everyone here seems to be saying, to play and listen and state what they hear.

There is no evidence of conspiracy by the authors. There is no evidence that key information escaped the peer review before it was published.

It does not have a popular conclusion, but I haven't seen any other DBT that refutes the conclusion.

Thanks for sharing and post any further tests or studies you find under the door. :D
 
#151
billfitzmaurice said:
Far more than those who claim to have hearing that's only possible if their birth name was Kal-El. Acoustical engineers must by definition understand the underlying biology of how hearing works, and how easily it can be fooled.
Even the measuring devices of 50 years ago were an order of magnitude higher in accuracy than the human ear/brain. What we can be sure of is that 20 years from now Luddites who haven't got the slightest clue as to how measuring devices work will still be making nonsensical claims denying their worth.
Click to expand...

Quoting this for posterity......it's total brilliance....and down to earth obviousness ....at the same time.
 
#152
One Drop said:
My argument is simply that we understand relatively little about how we experience the information that we do take in, in spite of the huge discoveries and advances of the last few centuries, and especially since we have begun to study the brain, which is only very recently and still only in its very infancy.
Click to expand...

Still, there are some things that we can be fairly certain about. One is that our expectations bias our experiences. Those expectations are as much a "component" of an amplifier, as we experience it, as subtle differences in damping factor or harmonic distortion.

Removing the bias factor, e.g., through controlled testing, is one way we know of to ascertain the effect of other factors.
 
#153
seamonkey said:
If they measure the same then they sound the same. If they sound different then something is wrong with the measurement.

I think someone famous said that. :D
Click to expand...

There is a VERY serious problem with that............ there is truth in the statement, but it must be read correctly.

"Engineers" have been saying it, or similar things, about various things forever, it seems..... They used to say that about older tube units and newer SS units back 30 years or so.... The SS units measured WAY lower in THD, and so they HAD TO be far better sounding.

But people (DBT or no DBT) persisted in saying they heard differences in the SS units that they did NOT like.

Naturally the "engineers" and others with an uncritical acceptance of testing insisted that this was basically a sort of "acoustic nostalgia", "listening with the eyes", etc. It was emphatically stated that there was NO WAY the SS was "worse", that THD, IM, noise floor, every test that could be run came up with the SS "miles ahead".... (questionable, but whatever)

Still the listeners reported a difference in "clarity", etc, etc....

Then someone discovered what came to be called "transient intermodulation"......... And suddenly it was discovered that the SS units had bursts of very high distortion that were completely absent from the tube units. Apparently a lot of "engineers" had to "eat crow", but I don't know that they ever really said "we wuz wrong"..... despite having defiantly insisted that the listeners were loopy.

The moral of the story is that the part about "If they sound different then something is wrong with the measurement." is quite true....... BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO BE MEASURING SOMETHING THAT IS RELEVANT, IN A RELEVANT WAY.

The problem with tests is that uncritically believing them as-is will get you in trouble if you do not completely account for the possibility that you have totally missed the point as to what may be causing the differences.......... You need to remember that you are attempting to "prove NON-existence"...... which is very much harder than proving "existence".

You need to be able to comprehend re-arranging the words of the statement........... which subtly changes the meaning.......

"If they sound different then something is wrong with the measurement."

becomes........

"If they sound different then something is (measured) with the wrong measurement."
 
#156
That doesn't mean I'm going to believe a bag of rocks will make your audiophile stereo system work better just because someone says he hears a difference, but it does make you think there is still plenty about the relationship between sound and tubes that we still don't understand. And sound and solid state. And sound in general.
 
#157
B-string said:
Well written? Quote "This is due tot he musician's insistence that tubes". I stopped there, if I get bored sometime I may check out the rest. ;)
Click to expand...

Hey, hey, hey for one there was no dcent word prosser with spel check back in 1981. And engineers are like doctors - they can't spell. the "tot" is easy to forgive given it was suppose to be 'to the" but the other misteaks....given that fact the tests were probably dead on.
 
#158
Jawbone said:
Hey, hey, hey for one there was no dcent word prosser with spel check back in 1981. And engineers are like doctors - they can't spell. the "tot" is easy to forgive given it was suppose to be 'to the" but the other misteaks....given that fact the tests were probably dead on.
Click to expand...

I think I peed a little from laughing at this. Good times people!

& one more "thankyouverymuchguys" for all the good info put out throughout this thread! You guys are amazing. There's been such good point & counterpoint going on.

I'm inspired to learn more.
 
#159
JimmyM said:
That doesn't mean I'm going to believe a bag of rocks will make your audiophile stereo system work better just because someone says he hears a difference, but it does make you think there is still plenty about the relationship between sound and tubes that we still don't understand. And sound and solid state. And sound in general.
Click to expand...

"Humans prove their measurements are repeatable (to themselves), the world around them doesn't always agree (with the measurement)." Dr. David Noble

Edit: I was 17 when he said it and forgot an important qualifier.
 
#160

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back