You seem to want me to repeat myself again & again - I cannot produce these scope shots (which I didn't take) because they are part of an upcoming review! DO you not understand this - I've told it to you before?
You are smarting from the last thread in which we exchanged views - your stated view at the end of that thread was that you now had an open mind! I'm sorry to see that it has snapped shut yet again.
You are now saying the things I predicted you would say on the last thread - commercial interests, etc - I doubt your motivations here are to have a meaningful discussion but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
Tell you what I'll do, I'll write to the reviewer & see if he will give me permission to publish some of these scope shots?
Sy, can you give me a link to how these measurements are done - I really don't know? However, I only have a built-in soundcard on my Dell laptop which I doubt would be up to the job. Another obstacle is that I doubt you guys will trust my measurements so I would prefer a third party.
Netlist, I wonder would this test be sensitive enough to reveal the difference between the timbre of different violins? If not then it will not be sensitive enough for a before mod/after mod test, I would surmise?
Yes, abraxalito, this is what I have been looking for all along - proof that his (or anybody's) tests can show what I am hearing in the modified Hiface. I have been asking for some posted plots to show this rather than a description of exactly what tests he will do. A description of what tests & equipment is intended to be used, would, I'm sure be of use!
For myself, it seems that 'proof' is a little strong. But yes, to take the time and expense of shipping your units out to Austin, we'd need reasonable assurances that the particular measurements SY is proposing to do will be sensitive enough to reveal the differences you hear. As far as I'm aware, those differences are fairly subtle ones and not at all closely related to the things like crosstalk and distortion which SY has indicated he'll be measuring.
Without those details, I confidently predict that sending your Hifaces to Texas will be a waste of everyone's time and your money.
Why would anyone seek to fabricate an argument? The correspondent is telling a deliberate lie? Perhaps this kind of expectation is a reflection of how you typically behave?
A dual insult inferring that correspondents are in need of therapy and that SY is likely to stumble or stutter. Or again, perhaps you regard this thread as therapy and feel in danger of stumbling or stuttering in view of all the distractions?
A suggestion that correspondents are being dishonest in their arguments and adopting self-conscious and unnatural positions. Again, I don't know where you got this idea from unless it's drawn from your own lexicon of behaviour.
The old saw about closed minds. A suggestion (somewhat lacking in originality) that the correspondent lacks some mental faculty. Same old same old.
A slur on the integrity of correspondents. Interestingly, we're all lumped together here.
He loves to dish it out...
w
Soundstage is on most recordings, though not all, where instrument spatial focus is a little more elusive.
I have found there are design steps to achieve soundstage depth, such as nested feedback, and many SS amps routinely degrade this, though tube amps do much better. I believe that tiny phase shift (less than 3 degrees) over the crossover band is the best indicator of sound stage in a speaker.
I have not yet found a measurement system which focusses on soundstage, but neither have I thrown much money at the problem.
I agree that timbre is harmonic composition, and the nature of hearing means this is very sensitive stuff. I do not agree any of this is worth getting upset about.
I have found there are design steps to achieve soundstage depth, such as nested feedback, and many SS amps routinely degrade this, though tube amps do much better. I believe that tiny phase shift (less than 3 degrees) over the crossover band is the best indicator of sound stage in a speaker.
I have not yet found a measurement system which focusses on soundstage, but neither have I thrown much money at the problem.
I agree that timbre is harmonic composition, and the nature of hearing means this is very sensitive stuff. I do not agree any of this is worth getting upset about.
Digression to the extent of speculation about people's motives helps progress in audio science how?
"Then put the unit in a box, put my address on it and I'll do the 15 minutes of work for you.
Really, what's so hard about this? - SY"
That sure sounds very thorough, considering that nobody appears to be sure that there are readily measurable differences, and what kind of measurements should be made.
SandyK
Really, what's so hard about this? - SY"
That sure sounds very thorough, considering that nobody appears to be sure that there are readily measurable differences, and what kind of measurements should be made.
SandyK
We have non-technical terms such as "imaging" and "soundstage" that are not well defined, as this thread has already shown (people disagree as to whether they are the same thing). There are a lot of "audiophile" words like this, and there's no direct translation between them and technical measurements, though no doubt it can be demonstrated that technical changes (a loudspeaker crossover was mentioned) can cause changes in the perceptions of the things these terms claim to name. I guess that's the point, imaging and soundstage are words used for the mind's perception of what one hears, and these perceptions, being in the mind, cannot be studied solely by studying the signals that prompts the mind to have these perceptions.
That's yet another point, virtually all commercial recording are made to "sound good" as opposed to attempting an exact reproduction, even when it's allegedly some stereo mic of a jazz trio, string quartet or orchestra - the mics are placed where they "sound good," perhaps the signals from other mics are mixed in when some instrument sounds weak through the stereo setup, and then further processing (eq, dynamic volume compression, who knows what else) may be added before it gets to the CD, LP or whatever. Especially the highly produced modern pop music of the last half century has a lot of this done. This is effectively an artist's rendering of a "soundstage" or "imaging" or whatever.So, the electrical journey is well understood, but don't make the mistake of thinking that "best" sound is necessarily perfect reproduction, where noise and distortions have been reduced to zero. The acoustic journey is way complicated, transducers are far from perfect and even though we can measure the defects, you and I might prefer entirely different designs. Thus, the audio hobby will happily continue.
Take a look at the papers I linked to. The measurements of the effects of digital interface problems are shown. The measurements I do are the same- sidebands of test tones, noise floor, distortion, frequency response. If you're claiming soundstage or image differences, add in separation and crosstalk.
Sorry, there's no boogity boogity. Either there's a change in the analog output or there isn't. If there is, reported sonic changes (in the absence of anyone bothering to run no peeking listening tests) at least may have some plausibility. As usual, my methods and results are documented and open, and my commercial interests are fully disclosed (i.e., they are nonexistent).
Sorry, there's no boogity boogity. Either there's a change in the analog output or there isn't. If there is, reported sonic changes (in the absence of anyone bothering to run no peeking listening tests) at least may have some plausibility. As usual, my methods and results are documented and open, and my commercial interests are fully disclosed (i.e., they are nonexistent).
All bets are off then - you're using test tones and not music. Jkeny, certainly don't waste your time shipping.
This is just like the old story of the guy who lost his car keys at night but is searching some way from his car under the nearest street lamp. When the policeman asks him 'did you lose your keys here?' he replies 'no, but there's no light where I dropped them'.
I suspect he never had any intention of doing so, so don't spend effort fretting.
Effort? Fretting? No evidence for either of those where I'm sitting. This is all excellent sport
I'm sure that he'd be interested if light was going to be shed. I surmise that all along you have not had the intention to shed light though
If you had, you'd have no reason to change the experiment so drastically.
I see. Did you have herring for dinner? Was it red?
I did promise to post some FFTs of the DCX. Here they are.
Background. Tho many folks say "the stock DCX2496 sounds just fine to me" I never liked it. Not awful, but it would get on my nerves after awhile, grate on me. But why?
So I ran quite a few tests on the stock DCX output circuit vs a transformer only output circuit. I believe the 2 graphs below show very well what I was hearing. The stock output generates a lot more harmonics up high - and even some subharmonics. The transformer does not. No musical signals were harmed during this test.
Attachments
I see. Did you have herring for dinner? Was it red?
No its brunch time here.
What's the reason for your confusion? If you spell it out a little less implicitly, I might be able to help.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.