Op Amp Replaced: Fosi V3 Monoblocks LM4562NA/NOPB $8x3

[Salt]

Why not record the speakers playing the song once with old OpAmp once with new OpAmp and compare the two, see if there's a difference.

I bet there is

Awaiting measurements...

 

[burkm]

The problem is: Human audio memory is only short lived (only a few seconds). Imagination as usual is then replaced by "I have heard it !" statements, which are invalid referring to the stated "problem" and all of the psychoacustic effects, which have been stated numerous times (some are decades old and have been repeatedly remeasured over time).

Strong believes can't be reverted just by those arguments, they will survive due to their subjective nature...
Believe is believe ...

 

[jmdesignz2]

The problem is: Human audio memory is only short lived (only a few seconds). Imagination as usual is then replaced by "I have heard it !" statements, which are invalid referring to the stated "problem" and all of the psychoacustic effects, which have been stated numerous times (some are decades old and have been repeatedly remeasured over time).

Strong believes can't be reverted just by those arguments, they will survive due to their subjective nature...
Believe is believe ...

What exactly do you mean by “human audio memory” only lasts a few seconds?

If I hear a “ insert musical instrument “ i can almost always tell if it’s recording or live

I can remember and discern and recognize my wife’s voice

How about that guy that can identify cars by the engine noise?

I moved my speakers closer to the wall and within a few seconds of listening to a familiar song I felt something was seriously wrong. bass notes felt weak and flimsy

I used REW and Confirmed there was a 20dB suck out around 90hz

I fixed it with some DIY acoustic panels

 

[caught gesture]

Echoic memory

 

[jmdesignz2]

Echoic memory

So they used the absolute wrong words

Echoic memory isn’t what I use to discern if this or that speaker sounds better or different when listening to the same track I’m extremely familiar with listening and remembering produced at various levels

“Echoic memory” IS far too specific to be used as an equivalent to “human audio memory”

I’ll close with this quote

“So, so you think you can tell
Heaven from hell? Blue skies from pain?
Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?”

I can certainly tell and recognize subtle variations in sound representation and reproduction

 

[burkm]

It is quite simple...
To compare something with something has to be done on a simple basis: play the same thing on compatible hardware, set the volume to identical levels and have someone switch very fast between those hidden systems within that stated time window. For a believable result look for audible differences between those systems and write them down. Because no one attending knows the quality of the source and what is actually playing, this is the only chance to compare everything...

 

[NTK]

What exactly do you mean by “human audio memory” only lasts a few seconds?

Duplicated from this post: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ds/human-bottleneck.40278/page-2#post-1422649

As to why we need fast switching ... Here is article on how we our memory of auditory information works. The TL; DR version is that after half a minute, we will not remember the details of the sound we heard, only its abstract representations.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270574966_Auditory_Memory

Some excerpts from the article ...

Preperceptual Auditory Storage
Preperceptual auditory storage retains the uncategorized representations of auditory inputs that have not yet been fully processed (Massaro 1975) and is also referred to as short auditory storage (Cowan 1984).
...
The duration of preperceptual auditory storage is very short. Most researchers agree that it lasts less than 300 ms.

Synthesized Auditory Memory
The auditory features stored in preperceptual auditory storage can be further analyzed to form integrated representations of sound.
...
The term “synthesized” refers to the process in which auditory features such as pitch, loudness, and aspects of timbre are analyzed and combined into integrated auditory representations. The duration of the synthesized auditory memory appears to vary from less than 1 s up to 30 s, depending on how it is measured, but it is most often found to be several seconds (Cowan 1984).

Generated Abstract Memory
The integrated representations in synthesized auditory memory can be further processed to form abstract representations in generated abstract memory (Massaro 1975). The abstract representations are considered to be domain general, meaning that they do not carry information about specific sensory details. Thus, abstract representations generated from each sensory domain (hearing, vision, touch, and so on) are all stored together in the generated abstract memory.
In more recent literature, generated abstract memory is often referred to as “the focus of attention” and is reported to have a core capacity of three to five items when various memory strategies are controlled (Cowan 2001). It is thought that information must be saved in generated abstract memory before high-level thinking about it can occur.

 

[jmdesignz2]

Duplicated from this post: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ds/human-bottleneck.40278/page-2#post-1422649

As to why we need fast switching ... Here is article on how we our memory of auditory information works. The TL; DR version is that after half a minute, we will not remember the details of the sound we heard, only its abstract representations.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270574966_Auditory_Memory

Some excerpts from the article ...

Preperceptual Auditory Storage
Preperceptual auditory storage retains the uncategorized representations of auditory inputs that have not yet been fully processed (Massaro 1975) and is also referred to as short auditory storage (Cowan 1984).
...
The duration of preperceptual auditory storage is very short. Most researchers agree that it lasts less than 300 ms.

Synthesized Auditory Memory
The auditory features stored in preperceptual auditory storage can be further analyzed to form integrated representations of sound.
...
The term “synthesized” refers to the process in which auditory features such as pitch, loudness, and aspects of timbre are analyzed and combined into integrated auditory representations. The duration of the synthesized auditory memory appears to vary from less than 1 s up to 30 s, depending on how it is measured, but it is most often found to be several seconds (Cowan 1984).

Generated Abstract Memory
The integrated representations in synthesized auditory memory can be further processed to form abstract representations in generated abstract memory (Massaro 1975). The abstract representations are considered to be domain general, meaning that they do not carry information about specific sensory details. Thus, abstract representations generated from each sensory domain (hearing, vision, touch, and so on) are all stored together in the generated abstract memory.
In more recent literature, generated abstract memory is often referred to as “the focus of attention” and is reported to have a core capacity of three to five items when various memory strategies are controlled (Cowan 2001). It is thought that information must be saved in generated abstract memory before high-level thinking about it can occur.

We are talking about different things unless...
one could be one of the few that can't memorize how music sounds for mental playback and then compare it later in a different setting, equipment etc

It is quite a dull life to not be able to have memories

For me, I can play back different CD's in my mind and hear them as they were performed on previous sound systems
for example the crescendo of St Saens Organ Symphony or the hall sound, and crack of the percussion played in the live recording of "Walking on the moon"
Then compare to the new sound systems reproduction

For certain parts used for critical listening, the more "real" a system can play this or that segment back is something that does stick out. Certainly more than a single note, track or cd is used to critically listen to a system AND discern differences.

 

[caught gesture]

sigh

 

[RexrothPigeon]

For me, I can play back different CD's in my mind and hear them as they were performed on previous sound systems

i once met a guy who said he could go back in time in his mind and change the past
turns out our ability to believe things is very powerful, even when it conflicts with reality

 

[solderdude]

For me, I can play back different CD's in my mind and hear them as they were performed on previous sound systems
for example the crescendo of St Saens Organ Symphony or the hall sound, and crack of the percussion played in the live recording of "Walking on the moon"
Then compare to the new sound systems reproduction

The question is .... did you remember correctly ?
You say you can/do, science says ... doesn't work accurately.
It is one thing to remember an impression but the human brain is known to alter things.

And sure .... recognizing/remembering some sounds/instruments is not the same as listening to an op-amp, swapping it and 'hearing' differences. Especially when the output waveform is exactly the same.

 

[burkm]

Exactly. Human memory is a delicate thing. Some people "think" they are remembering the "real thing", but they are just having a starkly modified copy of it in their memories available, which also depends on their own - daily - constitution and behavior. I feel sorry for them, because the seem to "believe", that their memories are the "real" thing, although proven scientifically differently many times already in the past.
"Strong believes" may be a great thing to them but not to me. To me it sounds more like a "religion"...

 

[dcolak]

We are talking about different things unless...
one could be one of the few that can't memorize how music sounds for mental playback and then compare it later in a different setting, equipment etc

It is quite a dull life to not be able to have memories

For me, I can play back different CD's in my mind and hear them as they were performed on previous sound systems
for example the crescendo of St Saens Organ Symphony or the hall sound, and crack of the percussion played in the live recording of "Walking on the moon"
Then compare to the new sound systems reproduction

For certain parts used for critical listening, the more "real" a system can play this or that segment back is something that does stick out. Certainly more than a single note, track or cd is used to critically listen to a system AND discern differences.

Yeah, people think you cannot actually discern between two different sounds.

"Just level match them and they are all the same."

Try listening to Yamaha A2000, Yamaha A1000 vs Marantz PM 4001 vs Fosi Mono V3 vs Yamaha P5000S vs Yamaha P35000S vs NAD M3 vs Topping LA90 discrete.

Each of them imprints its footprint on the sound.

Yamaha's are very mellow and dark (class A thing?), Marantz is open and brutally transparent, Fosi's highs sound like something that has no resemblence to real life sounds, Yamaha P5000S has a bit muted highs, Yamaha P3500S si brutally honest with transparency close to that of Marantz, NAD M3 was all around good amp, transparent, potent, but as all NAD equipment, died on me.

But no, it all sounds the same, just level match it and play within amp's specs. Then keep switching between the two *quickly* and you will not know the difference.

Lol. Ok. How about you spend a week with an amp, listening to it? Then see if you still find it wrong, like i did with Fosi. Or try playing loud Topping LA90 Discrete... oh, how can it be, the sound fell apart?

Maybe, I don't know, maybe because it has only 4A available? Compare it to real amps with let's say 34 amperes available at the tap (example NAD C370).

But no, Topping, Fosi, they are all "giant killers" ... that is, until you decide to play it a bit louder or connect to real world speakers.

But frequency response! But SINAD! Ok, how many amperes does it have available? Oh!

Yeah...

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

But no, it all sounds the same, just level match it and play within amp's specs. Then keep switching between the two *quickly* and you will not know the difference.

Switching quickly actually makes it easier to tell the difference. It’s not an evil objectivist trick, it’s actually designed to help you.

Lol. Ok. How about you spend a week with an amp, listening to it? Then see if you still find it wrong, like i did with Fosi. Or try playing loud Topping LA90 Discrete... oh, how can it be, the sound fell apart?

You can spend as long as you like listening to an amp. There’s no reason not to if you want (but see above, it’s just making things harder).
As long as you don’t know which amp is playing for that week.
Try it. Listen to one amp for as long as you like and then get someone to switch amps (or not) without you knowing which is which.
Listen as long as you like and see if you know which is which. Repeat a few times and see if you get get it right more than if you just guessed.

 

[RandomEar]

Yeah, people think you cannot actually discern between two different sounds.

"Just level match them and they are all the same."

Try listening to Yamaha A2000, Yamaha A1000 vs Marantz PM 4001 vs Fosi Mono V3 vs Yamaha P5000S vs Yamaha P35000S vs NAD M3 vs Topping LA90 discrete.

Each of them imprints its footprint on the sound.

Yamaha's are very mellow and dark (class A thing?), Marantz is open and brutally transparent, Fosi's highs sound like something that has no resemblence to real life sounds, Yamaha P5000S has a bit muted highs, Yamaha P3500S si brutally honest with transparency close to that of Marantz, NAD M3 was all around good amp, transparent, potent, but as all NAD equipment, died on me.

But no, it all sounds the same, just level match it and play within amp's specs. Then keep switching between the two *quickly* and you will not know the difference.

Lol. Ok. How about you spend a week with an amp, listening to it? Then see if you still find it wrong, like i did with Fosi. Or try playing loud Topping LA90 Discrete... oh, how can it be, the sound fell apart?

Maybe, I don't know, maybe because it has only 4A available? Compare it to real amps with let's say 34 amperes available at the tap (example NAD C370).

But no, Topping, Fosi, they are all "giant killers" ... that is, until you decide to play it a bit louder or connect to real world speakers.

But frequency response! But SINAD! Ok, how many amperes does it have available? Oh!

Yeah...

Have you considered that your tests simply lacked the proper controls? Because with those controls (level-matching, blinding) in place, people failed to differentiate much worse amps than the ones you listed as far back as 40 years ago. Listening to devices longer also makes your testing less reliable, not more. There are many more such misconceptions in your post. Most of them have been explained already in this thread and others around ASR, so I will refrain from repeating those explanations.

If you want to learn more about how proper testing is done in audio science, have a look here:

Audio Blind Testing - You Are Doing It Wrong! (Video)

Just uploaded a video on the basics of performing controlled tests in audio. It was motivated by saving myself text in having to write all of this down when telling someone who to do these tests right. And as a counter to a few online personalities to keep saying they do "blind" tests yet when...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Audio Blind Tests and Listener Training (video)

I see so many people claiming to have done blind tests in youtube videos recently without knowing what it means to perform one. Also, the topic of training comes up with many abusing the term. So I decided on a whim to create a video on it. It is rather long at 44 minutes but you can speed it...

www.audiosciencereview.com

AES Paper Digest: Sensitivity and Reliability of ABX Blind Testing

This is abbreviated synopsis of the paper, Ten Years of ABX Testing, by David Clark: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5549 ABX testing as you may know is a double blind testing methodology aimed at determining if someone can reliably identify A from B. Both A and B are presented to the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Testing audiophile claims and myths

(As I find more blind tests I will add them to the list here.) So, we love to have a good discussion/argument/rant here (and on all the other audio forums I have seen) about the many claims audiophiles make that others dismiss as myths. The arguments go round in circles; I hear a difference -...

www.head-fi.org

 

[antcollinet]

We are talking about different things unless...
one could be one of the few that can't memorize how music sounds for mental playback and then compare it later in a different setting, equipment etc

It is quite a dull life to not be able to have memories

For me, I can play back different CD's in my mind and hear them as they were performed on previous sound systems
for example the crescendo of St Saens Organ Symphony or the hall sound, and crack of the percussion played in the live recording of "Walking on the moon"
Then compare to the new sound systems reproduction

For certain parts used for critical listening, the more "real" a system can play this or that segment back is something that does stick out. Certainly more than a single note, track or cd is used to critically listen to a system AND discern differences.

You can remember what a £1 (or €1 or EUR1 - or whatever the lowest denomination in your region) note looks like, can't you? You can see it in your mind. You certainly know it well enough to recognise it instantly the next time you see one.

Now - without looking at one. Draw it. When you have drawn it, compare what you have drawn with the real thing.

Nothing like it, right? The only way to draw the note accurately is to have it in front of you - looking from the note to your drawing continuously, and copying the details across one by one.

Your auditory memory has similarly poor capacity for detail.

 

[dcolak]

Yeah, sure, friends visiting me, saying "hey, what happened to your system, sounds strange" or "hey, where are the lows" or "whoa, this sounds like my headphones" they all are imagining things.

We are all imagining things, it all sounds the same, no matter how many amperes amp has or what's the damping factor or what speakers are connected to the amp or what's the output impedance of the source vs input impedance of the preamp/amp.

4 amperes amplifiers are as good as real amplifiers, trust me bro, look at the SINAD and frequency response, they are all the same. lol

 

[voodooless]

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

Yeah, sure, friends visiting me, saying "hey, what happened to your system, sounds strange" or "hey, where are the lows" or "whoa, this sounds like my headphones" they all are imagining things.

We are all imagining things, it all sounds the same, no matter how many amperes amp has or what's the damping factor or what speakers are connected to the amp or what's the output impedance of the source vs input impedance of the preamp/amp.

4 amperes amplifiers are as good as real amplifiers, trust me bro, look at the SINAD and frequency response, they are all the same. lol

People are engaging you in good faith. It’s starting to feel as if you have no desire to respond in kind.

 

[DavidR]

Yeah, sure, friends visiting me, saying "hey, what happened to your system, sounds strange" or "hey, where are the lows" or "whoa, this sounds like my headphones" they all are imagining things.

We are all imagining things, it all sounds the same, no matter how many amperes amp has or what's the damping factor or what speakers are connected to the amp or what's the output impedance of the source vs input impedance of the preamp/amp.

4 amperes amplifiers are as good as real amplifiers, trust me bro, look at the SINAD and frequency response, they are all the same. lol

If this is what you actually believe, disregarding long established methodological, scientific research as many have tried to get you to consider (there are real experts in the industry that do this sort of research), why are you even here? To me it's coming across more as trolling than engaging in honest debate. You have nothing for support/proof other than anecdotal evidence. Show us a link to serious research that supports your opinion. I can't recall ever seeing any. There's ample evidence to the contrary that has been referenced by others here. Show us yours. Otherwise, you have no acceptible evidence, just hearsay.