UpTone LPS-1 Linear Power Supply Review and Measurements

[Jakob1863]

Hmmm.... They were able to get the current results with no training whatsoever.

Do you really know or do you speculate?
I might be mistaken but i think up to now he did not participate in any ABX tests but is/was listening to music via his reproduction system for prolonged time spans.......

 

[Soniclife]

This should be your moment of awakening.

I have no idea what you are getting at here.

 

[Jinjuku]

I have no idea what you are getting at here.

I agree.

 

[Jinjuku]

Do you really know or do you speculate?
I might be mistaken but i think up to now he did not participate in any ABX tests but is/was listening to music via his reproduction system for prolonged time spans.......

If you are saying that someone honestly hears a difference using a long term listening method, that it's still fundamentally A/B, then I'm in complete agreement with you that there can be one minor tweak to their otherwise, acceptable anecdotal experience (for you that is), and then I'm 100% accepting this on the face value you place.

 

[amirm]

I stated "....most likely needs prolonged training...."
You stated "only if the difference is much smaller than they think....." which means imo that listeners (not used to do "blind" controlled listening tests" only need prolonged training ....if the actual difference is smaller than they think.

To the contrary (of that "only") i asserted that they even would (most likely) need prolonged training .... if the difference is bigger than they think.

Which still begs the question I asked.

But i was asking if you could cite some studies examining if training is only needed if differences are much smaller than expected.

I can give you a clear example based on personal experience.

Let's say poster says 320 kbps MPS is much worse than CD. And that we know trained listeners can tell the difference between 320 kbps MP3 and CD. In that situation, if I tested the person without training, he could fail to hear that difference even though that fidelity drop is there. That difference is inaudible to the poster without training and hence is much less than what he expected.

Let's now address the first part above. If I make the MP3 data rate 32 kbps, then the difference between that and CD will be huge and higher than the person's impression that MP3 is worse than CD. There, no training is necessary as the audible fidelity drop is even higher that the impression of the tester.

 

[Soniclife]

I agree.

You agree I don't know, or you don't know either?

 

[Soniclife]

Let's say poster says 320 kbps MPS is much worse than CD. And that we know trained listeners can tell the difference between 320 kbps MP3 and CD. In that situation, if I tested the person without training, he could fail to hear that difference even though that fidelity drop is there. That difference is inaudible to the poster without training and hence is much less than what he expected.

That's the bit I think lots of people secretly fear they already know, that causes them to avoid doing DBTs, they prefer to actively embrace the fantasy of large differences.

 

[Thomas savage]

As one can see on this forum and indeed else where online , folks don’t embrace the possibly of being proved wrong. They tend to put up all sorts of defensive barriers in order to shield themselves, knowingly or not.

This attitude seems as prevalent amongst the objective side of Audio as it is in the subjective side of things , if we can indulge such a crudely defined divide for a moment.

The most intresting and stimulating discussion from my perspective comes from people who’s main goal is further understanding, with if necessary their own ego being seen as collateral damage in this higher pursuit.

Posturing, point scoring , inane semantically drive argument , garden variety arrogance and the like seem to be the more seductive path when disagreements flower as is avoiding any kind of acid test for ones beliefs in Audio and possibly elsewhere.

So we can’t jump on guys who avoid or don’t volunteer for DBT’s , and us making demands in this regard can come across as aggressive so if we are to suggest them we need to do so with no angst inferred as indeed amir has done.

I’d encourage others who want to put forth such challenges to take amirs lead in this regard. We are here to encourage and build further understanding, give a helping hand and I expect that to be reflected in the tone used by those offering these tests.

 

[oivavoi]

Apart from that i only know about comparisons of ABX to other protocols in sensory food evaluations where results of larger groups were examined in different conditions. While all protocols showed significant results, the proportion of correct responses was higher in A/B tests than in ABX tests.

Interesting! You might have posted the link to this food study already, but would you mind posting it again?

Wrt something that a listener might be able to percecpt in "casual/normal" listening mode it most likely does not help to gather data from an experiment where the listener is participating in an artifical setting introducing additional variables.

I posted this in another thread today, but this study is actually also relevant to the discussion here: http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/805557/9/2013 135th AES Convention Pike.pdf

Their study was about adaptation to rooms and timbre, but they also investigated different comparison methods. In their second experiment, formal and focused comparison was compared to a type of listening that the authors regard as closer to real world listening. The result was that focused, direct comparison was more revealing of differences.

This makes intuitive sense to me: Human perception is inherently adaptable. If it suddenly starts raining outside the house, we will hear it and notice it immediately. If it rains for hours and hours, at some point we will stop noticing the sound so much (interestingly, Buddhist monks who meditate a lot seem be more continuously aware of their sensory experiences than others). I would simply assume this to be the case with audio as well. Things that sound strange or "wrong" at first, may disappear from our consciousness after a while. So, I've concluded that I'm not convinced by the argument that long-term listening is more revealing of differences than short-term listening.
(but sensory adaptation may also be be a problem with short-term listening tests, of course)

I do find the argument against ABX convincing though, in favor of AB tests. This is partly because I've done some ABX tests myself, and I realized how cognitively demanding it was. I've also done some AB tests, and found them to be much easier on the brain. It also makes sense to me that some training may be needed to be able to spot differences in blind tests, given that blind listening is so different from our normal mode of operating.

 

[Jinjuku]

You agree I don't know, or you don't know either?

I agree you don't understand the significance of what you wrote:

"my understanding on how the foobar abx works is when it starts it pulls both file into it's ram" and "so you are not listening to the data from the disk direct" and "every player does the same so maybe it's the same"

Nothing is ever played directly off of disk. It's a misnomer.

 

[March Audio]

As one can see on this forum and indeed else where online , folks don’t embrace the possibly of being proved wrong. They tend to put up all sorts of defensive barriers in order to shield themselves, knowingly or not.

This attitude seems as prevalent amongst the objective side of Audio as it is in the subjective side of things , if we can indulge such a crudely defined divide for a moment.

The most intresting and stimulating discussion from my perspective comes from people who’s main goal is further understanding, with if necessary their own ego being seen as collateral damage in this higher pursuit.

Posturing, point scoring , inane semantically drive argument , garden variety arrogance and the like seem to be the more seductive path when disagreements flower as is avoiding any kind of acid test for ones beliefs in Audio and possibly elsewhere.

Now whilst I agree with most of what you say there, nobody is immune from getting involved in non productive entrenched argument, what do you do with subjective dogma thats not based in any form of reality? A trip along the corridors of WBF will show that there is much subjective audiophillia that is not bourne in reality. Isnt that why we are here in a science based forum?

So do you ignore, or do you present an argument that uses fact and scientific knowledge to explain. What do you do when the factual argument is point blank not accepted? Go to any subjective based forum and you will see this.

Why shouldnt the objective and scientific position argue against technically uninformed dogma? Should the science based position just "shut up" and let the dogma pollute the forum unchecked?

 

[Wombat]

Now whilst I agree with most of what you say there, nobody is immune from getting involved in non productive entrenched argument, what do you do with subjective dogma thats not based in any form of reality? A trip along the corridors of WBF will show that there is much subjective audiophillia that is not bourne in reality. Isnt that why we are here in a scienc

Now whilst I agree with most of what you say there, nobody is immune from getting involved in non productive entrenched argument, what do you do with subjective dogma thats not based in any form of reality? A trip along the corridors of WBF will show that there is much subjective audiophillia that is not bourne in reality. Isnt that why we are here in a science based forum?

So do you ignore, or do you present an argument that uses fact and scientific knowledge to explain. What do you do when the factual argument is point blank not accepted? Go to any subjective based forum and you will see this.

Why shouldnt the objective and scientific position argue against technically uninformed dogma? Should the science based position just "shut up" and let the dogma pollute the forum unchecked?

From the Forum header: ................ Desire to learn and share knowledge of science is required .............

Is there something subjective in that that I am missing?

 

[amirm]

As one can see on this forum and indeed else where online , folks don’t embrace the possibly of being proved wrong. They tend to put up all sorts of defensive barriers in order to shield themselves, knowingly or not.

This attitude seems as prevalent amongst the objective side of Audio as it is in the subjective side of things , if we can indulge such a crudely defined divide for a moment.

The most intresting and stimulating discussion from my perspective comes from people who’s main goal is further understanding, with if necessary their own ego being seen as collateral damage in this higher pursuit.

Posturing, point scoring , inane semantically drive argument , garden variety arrogance and the like seem to be the more seductive path when disagreements flower as is avoiding any kind of acid test for ones beliefs in Audio and possibly elsewhere.

So we can’t jump on guys who avoid or don’t volunteer for DBT’s , and us making demands in this regard can come across as aggressive so if we are to suggest them we need to do so with no angst inferred as indeed amir has done.

I’d encourage others who want to put forth such challenges to take amirs lead in this regard. We are here to encourage and build further understanding, give a helping hand and I expect that to be reflected in the tone used by those offering these tests.

Thanks Thomas.

The only other thing I will add is let's not accept every invitation for battle. It takes so much energy to fight these battles. Let new folks converse as they would at least for a while and keep our cool.

 

[March Audio]

Thanks Thomas.

The only other thing I will add is let's not accept every invitation for battle. It takes so much energy to fight these battles. Let new folks converse as they would at least for a while and keep our cool.

Agreed, ignore also does the job.

 

[March Audio]

From the Forum header: ................ Desire to learn and share knowledge of science is required .............

Is there something subjective in that that I am missing?

I think it's fair to say that science can and is applied to subjective matters it's not off topic at all, far from it, it's just when it's unverified and unsubstantiated dogma that it becomes an issue.

 

[Wombat]

I think it's fair to say that science can and is applied to subjective matters it's not off topic at all, far from it, it's just when it's unverified and unsubstantiated dogma that it becomes an issue.

Agreed. I could have put it less concisely.
Subjective impressions have been important in the pursuit of scientific discovery.
Stubborn adherence, without credible substantiation, to subjective opinions in the face of doubt or factual contrarianism is challengeable within the context of this forum. IMHO.

 

[Thomas savage]

Now whilst I agree with most of what you say there, nobody is immune from getting involved in non productive entrenched argument, what do you do with subjective dogma thats not based in any form of reality? A trip along the corridors of WBF will show that there is much subjective audiophillia that is not bourne in reality. Isnt that why we are here in a science based forum?

So do you ignore, or do you present an argument that uses fact and scientific knowledge to explain. What do you do when the factual argument is point blank not accepted? Go to any subjective based forum and you will see this.

Why shouldnt the objective and scientific position argue against technically uninformed dogma? Should the science based position just "shut up" and let the dogma pollute the forum unchecked?

Why shouldnt the objective and scientific position argue against technically uninformed dogma? Should the science based position just "shut up" and let the dogma pollute the forum unchecked?

Was there anything in my post to suggest we shouldn’t..,

We should carry on as we do, you carry on as you are. Your objective is the same as mine, it’s not a case of one extreme to the other. I’d suggest that way of thinking is the unfortunate product of these social media/internet forum mediums.

Id encourage a greater degree of security in what you all hold to be true/ reality, we are all on the same side but a few of us ( amir included) have transitioned over from the ‘subjective ‘ arena and that’s something we want to encourage in others.

Go and have a look here https://hifiwigwam.com/forum/topic/127174-subwoofer-integration-an-interesting-article/

You will see many of our/your values are taking hold in mainstream ‘mixed’ forums.

So let’s drop the dual narrative barrier and get on being understanding, informative and above all effective. Being overly confrontational just entrenches the opposing view , yes Audio has gone too far the wrong way but that’s partly the false of those making the argument for reasoned analysis. If people leave here even more entrenched in a less sound way of thinking we are ading to the problem.

We are here to correct that, or help at least. .., it’s hard, but then Science is hard, all worthwhile things tend to be hard.

It amuses me , if you look about here you will see many threads containing fruity pondering with little evidence sort to affirm anything at all. Non of those were started by evil subjectivist lol

On a serious note, if your all having a highly technical debate i will preserve the integrity of those kind of threads. We must not get bogged down in those areas, I agree entirely with you there.

Anyway let’s not chew on our own bones here too much, it was not my intention to start a thread of introspection.

Just remember this ..,

You put the bandage on before you beat them with a stick, that way they will think you care

 

[Wombat]

Pander to their feelings but not to ours?
Shit, I have been asked by an ''''audiophile'''' to prove him wrong when he mis-used Ohms Law to his benefit. After doing so I got the response that EEs use 'old science' and don't understand audio. At some point you have to draw the line on these idiots.

 

[oivavoi]

Completely agree with Thomas. Calling people idiots doesn't advance scientific understanding at all, probably to the contrary. After all, subjectivists are only displaying the very normal human tendency to stick to their beliefs and their group identities even in the face of disconfirming evidence. To a certain degree that is the case with us all, objectivists or not.

But facts CAN in fact change people's minds. But in order for that happen, these facts can't be presented as attacks on people's very identities.

 

[Thomas savage]

Pander to their feelings but not to ours?
Shit, I have been asked by an ''''audiophile'''' to prove him wrong when he mis-used Ohms Law to his benefit. After doing so I got the response that EEs use 'old science' and don't understand audio. At some point you have to draw the line on these idiots.

No, just do what best to get the message across , very simple.

We are all responsible for our own “feelings” , all I ask is if folk are going to put forth tests to do so in a friendly manner as amir did.

That’s all, no need to inflate things with extreme polar reasoning . We are here to promote sound argument and reason after all, not to leap hot footed from one extrem to another.

Now what were we discussing, something about uptone..