John I disagree. If you don't hear the difference, then why worry? I have never said that your ears, equipment or tastes are sub par. That is your inference. If you like it, you like it. For you the difference does not exist and that's great. How can I argue with that?
On the flip side, if I say I can hear the difference and don't like the stock unit, how can that possibly be of detriment to you? Are you then inferring that I'm mad or delusional? See, same thing. Not much point in it either way.
I love measurements. I agree that they tell us all sorts of good things. I want to know about noise, oscillations, frequency response, phase. But I have yet to see a THD or IM measurement that corresponds to what I hear. Wish that I had! And no one so far has shown a link between them. Harmonic structure has been shown to correspond to listening preferences, even at tiny levels.
To me it makes no sense to tell you that you are foolish for liking what you like. If you like it because of how it sounds, or how it measures, or both, that's cool with me.
But I also get miffed when someone tells me that I DON'T hear a difference because the numbers prove that I can not. I have to bring out that tired old saw "I trust my ears." Yes, they can be fooled, but so can anyone's.
It's an argument with no hope of resolution. And it's been going on for at least 60 years.
On the flip side, if I say I can hear the difference and don't like the stock unit, how can that possibly be of detriment to you? Are you then inferring that I'm mad or delusional? See, same thing. Not much point in it either way.
I love measurements. I agree that they tell us all sorts of good things. I want to know about noise, oscillations, frequency response, phase. But I have yet to see a THD or IM measurement that corresponds to what I hear. Wish that I had! And no one so far has shown a link between them. Harmonic structure has been shown to correspond to listening preferences, even at tiny levels.
To me it makes no sense to tell you that you are foolish for liking what you like. If you like it because of how it sounds, or how it measures, or both, that's cool with me.
But I also get miffed when someone tells me that I DON'T hear a difference because the numbers prove that I can not. I have to bring out that tired old saw "I trust my ears." Yes, they can be fooled, but so can anyone's.
It's an argument with no hope of resolution. And it's been going on for at least 60 years.
That's the whole point: I don't worry because I'm not listening for a difference. I haven't been tempted to mod my DCX for that reason. I refuse to ruin my enjoyment of music by listening for possible defects in its reproduction.
In my world, defects readily show in measurements and that's where I deal with them.
The measurements shown only go so far as to tell us that this device is in the same ballpark as many other devices (all of which can sound radically different)
These measures are missing a lot of things that go wrong. Particlarily once the signal becomes complex and not simply periodic.
dave
At least for THD, Geddes has done research that starts to show that there is no correlation between it and how something sounds.
dave
Be forwarned John. One of these days your precarious world will come tumbling down and all the king's horses and all the king's men
won't be able to put it together again. You'll be in for a whole bunch of discovery & enjoyment of how much you've been missing
dave
Depends on what sort of "ballpark". If a mod'ed DCX and an unmod'ed one both had objective distortion and noise measurements below what could be heard, and differences in their respective frequency responses that were also not audible, then what's the point of the mod?
Of course, some also don't believe the body of psychoacoustic knowledge concerning audibility (how much frequency deviation we can hear, distortion etc). That's a tough call by the way, given how many years of research has gone into that field.
Sounding "radically different" would be an easy test to do in double blind conditions. But many don't buy into dbt (see other threads). Without such a test, its just individualized hand waving.
Obviously diyers get a real kick out of moding (ah the smell of hot solder
). You are using your hands and your intellect to make a standard production item something different and unique: it has your expertise and effort embedded within it after the mod. But the warm feelings of a mod completed successfully is different from the truth of there being an audible improvement that would be heard by the hundreds (thousands?) of DCX owners, not just by the ones who did the mod.
When we can measure all of the things an ear + a brain can detect then those measures would indicate that the mod was not worthwhile. Given the state of today's measuring tech, it would say nothing.
Agreed. What people are really objecting to is that most of what passes in audio as dbt does not stand the rigor of scientific analysis.
So we have measures that are useful to a designer, but not much help in telling us what things sound like, and (attempts) at dbts that are no more than sideshows, What do we have left?
And a piece missing is a comprehensive set of experimental data that ties measures to what we hear. This to date is pretty skimpy.
dave
As pointed out by others its not that you possibly can't measure – you simply cant interpret with confidence – the correlation between spec and perception is the unsolved problem.
Hence I asked you to tell me how you ever *measured* the sonic difference of a simple trace layout change...
I guarantee - once you are able to answer *that* question a lot of other questions get mute...
The point to be a DIYer is to find out what *YOU* can hear and prefer – not what is said (or scientifically has been "proven") that *can be heard* - quite a difference you will find out over the course!
So all what people here can do for you is not to argue about specs but to make suggestions you may or may not like to test for your own. Also you should not call for skills and equipment better than only few R&D departments of pro manufacturer have available from a DIY'er – as long as *you* are not playing in that ballpark either...
As for specs – have a look at those for typical tube amps / typical speakers / typical microphones – you immediately will see the difficulty to prove very minor spec deviations (like modding a DCX for example) in the presence of such huge distortions of other elements in the reproduction chain to be of *any* concern – LOGICALLY !!!
And nonetheless they exist and are even essential to many, as you easily can prove for yourself and have been proven by a million audio freaks already.
Michael
Last edited:
If some piece of equipment that measures very good but "sounds" bad to the listener, the listener likes more distorted sound?
To listener who likes natural, original signal like sound, and uses this as a reference, the measurements tell pretty good how the measured equipment is going to affect the original signal, and therefore, the sound that comes out from speaker. If the effect is minimal, then it is minimal.
Signal prosessor's role is to do what it does and distort the signal least amount possible, nothing more, nothing less.
(I have not heards an amplifier that measures good but sound bad up to date.)
This is a question of the same phrase "good sound" used differently in different context which leads to results that cannot be read the way you suggest.
1) In context of audio measuring everybody agrees that better sound is the least distorted one. In measurement world "better sound" means better measurements, less distorted sound. Better sound has an objective definition.
2) In context of listening and listening test the concept of "good sound" is more of a personal preference of the listener. A likes sound X and tells us it is "good sound" while B likes sound Y and also tells us it is "good sound", because of his different liking. There is no objective scale. Thus making such a list that would tell us that amplifier that measures X in a way of Y, sounds "good", would be impossible because we wave billions of different definitions for "good". Some like the least distorted sound, some like something else.
The biggest correlation of all, in the world of subjective listening is that something that costs more, tends to sound better. This conclusion is totally absurd in the world of measurements, but totally true for some listeners in the world of subjectivity.
LOL
I completely agree with what Pano and Planet10 tried to tell – Once you *really* prove your above statement in each and any case – you will immediately become king in audio world !
Last edited:
Hi Sy
Yes this could be one explanation (I have a bunch of others in addition if you are interested..
) - in the presence of the "measuring / interpretation dilemma" the point is - you have to find a concept that works - meaning you have to develop on perception and distinction of effects involved *and* on kinda theory that cuts down time needed to stab in the dark.But as long as nothing bothers you - why put on "night vision goggles", I ask you
Michael
What are you saying? Measuring the signal is an objective method, listening to the signal is a subjective method, isn't it? Once we have this concluded, we have to decide what kind of measurement result is better than any other result. The logical choice is to choose the result that is less distorted, isn't it? The world of audio measuring is very logical.
In subjective world however things are different. Measurements of the objective world cannot answer the question which sound "sounds good", it up to listener to decide that. I did not state otherwise, you should read more carefully.
The joke goes like that:
asking the drunk searching under the latern :
– "What you are looking for?"
– "My car's key"
– "Where have you lost?"
– "Over there"
– "And why are you searching here under the latern actually?"
– "It's dark over there ! – cant you see ?"
Michael
Last edited:
False dichotomy. One can answer questions of subjectivity (in the context that you use it) objectively. If I say, "capacitor A sounds different than capacitor B" and hear the difference in a controlled test 5 times in a row, the objective answer is, yes, I can hear that difference, independent of any measurements.
Anyway, this is FAR off-topic. The 2496 is not, AFAIK, a perfect device, so improvements can be made. Measurements can validate the improvements, as can controlled subjective tests.
Stock DCX measurements post # 2065
How did we go from this post where it is reported that the stock DCX measures poorly, as high as .1% THD at higher frequencies of sweeps,
.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/15943-behringer-dcx2496-digital-x-over-207.html#post2008048
.
to the current discussion that favors the view point that it measures well and has no room for improvement?
I guess many people missed the posts of his measurements.
How did we go from this post where it is reported that the stock DCX measures poorly, as high as .1% THD at higher frequencies of sweeps,
.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/15943-behringer-dcx2496-digital-x-over-207.html#post2008048
.
to the current discussion that favors the view point that it measures well and has no room for improvement?
I guess many people missed the posts of his measurements.
No it's not, you are making a strawman there since I never talked about sounding "different" but "better". Difference can be measured with ears of course, but which one is better we cannot determine, because the question is subjective I'm afraid. In subjective matter one's truth is not necessary the reality.
Last edited:
I stated previously:
Where do you see a statement that says DCX is a flawless piece of equipment. I don't either, nor have I ever stated so, or even believe so. Try not to distort the signal here
Btw, I'm just questioning the absolute need for modding DCX. Modding is great fun I'm sure, but does it actually contribute audible differences in such "small roled" gear like dcx, and how much, is a different question. If anyone get's offended by this, it's his neurotransmitter's work, thus his problem, not mine.
If the mods are a godsend it should be a piece of cake to actually prove it with measurements or some other objective way? Person who makes a claim should present some evidence that supports his claim. Until that is done, the claim is just another unverified anecdote.
Like someone said, the measurement data is the most valuable piece information to the designer. And yet no mod builders have ever measured the result of their work? "As long as you have somehow modded your DCX, it is (automatically) better than stock DCX."
If the mods are a godsend it should be a piece of cake to actually prove it with measurements or some other objective way? Person who makes a claim should present some evidence that supports his claim. Until that is done, the claim is just another unverified anecdote.
Like someone said, the measurement data is the most valuable piece information to the designer. And yet no mod builders have ever measured the result of their work? "As long as you have somehow modded your DCX, it is (automatically) better than stock DCX."