One more post on this subject.. I feel I'm "beating a dead horse" w/ the topic now...
I can accept that, and the other comments you've made about it being the minds interpretation of the limited data the ears supply, as the 'amazing' part of human hearing.
But still stick to my belief that peoples standard distortion and frequency measurements don't get close to showing the full picture of what makes one system more pleasing to listen to than another. (If they did, threads like this, and PP vs SE, and tube vs ss, etc, would not happen)
No, they don't. There's a lot more measurements needed to characterize the sound of a "system," and "pleasing" varies so much from person to person, that one can only make generalizations. But... if two systems sound different, they WILL measure differently, as long as you don't limit yourself to only one or two types of measurement.
is the subjectivists' standard strawman - go to the Audio Precision site - read the papers, manuals of their latest instruments - that is much closer to the "standard measurements" used by "conventional engineers" wringing out a new design during product development
today's standards of measurement will generate Gb of data, hundreds of graphs...
Sy, jcx: I totally agree with your last two posts. The "standard measurements" typically posted by manufacturers don't tell the full story.
If you can hear a difference, then you should be able to measure one. Only trick is that you need to quantify that diffucult "hear" part with blind comparisons to eliminate the placebo effect.
If you can hear a difference, then you should be able to measure one. Only trick is that you need to quantify that diffucult "hear" part with blind comparisons to eliminate the placebo effect.
But also don't forget we're on a DIY forum.. not an industry, audio engineering, cutting edge of measurement instrumentation forum.
While it's good to mention the modern cutting edge, you have to remember a lot of use here don't have better than a sound card and pmillett's interface, so we're limited... maybe quite drastically.
then the interpretation of that data is difficult too... because w/ just the pmillett interface and a sound card, two amps that sound very different from one another have graphs that overlay almost identically... not identical, but so very close....
Edit.. I guess that's kind of pointless... because if the industry has found a way to actually measure the differences we hear, the DIY people just need to catch up..
While it's good to mention the modern cutting edge, you have to remember a lot of use here don't have better than a sound card and pmillett's interface, so we're limited... maybe quite drastically.
then the interpretation of that data is difficult too... because w/ just the pmillett interface and a sound card, two amps that sound very different from one another have graphs that overlay almost identically... not identical, but so very close....
Edit.. I guess that's kind of pointless... because if the industry has found a way to actually measure the differences we hear, the DIY people just need to catch up..
Last edited:
because if the industry has found a way to actually measure the differences we hear, the DIY people just need to catch up..
No, no..you have it backwards. Industry has to learn how to catch up with us DIY'ers...
jn
Sorry, I'll be a bit clearer...
I agree. The manufacturer's measurements are usually performed on a test bench using extremely well designed test equipment, so bench results cannot indicate the level to which the equipment design is susceptible to ground loops. If the equipment is susceptible to them, then measurement in situ will be required to see the actual performance at the user's location with the user's equipment.
If the equipment is susceptible to an untoward effect in situ, the an audible difference in situ must be measureable, and not to be confused with test bench measurements which do not have confounding factors.
Which is independent, but I also agree..
jn
Merely an attempt on my behalf to blend in with this week's mood of the crowd
Not intended as insulting and/or provoking.
That some have an excellent nose for fragrances bares little meaning for the majority.
Same for taste, most people's taste function is at a rather poverish level.
Ditto for hearing, and 99 out of 100 never learned to listen.
The rare few exceptions do not make it a general fact.
(superior taste/smell/hearing is more of a burden than a blessing, btw)
Oh, boy ... there goes the whole advertising industry, down the gurgler ...
And suddenly a whole lot of sensible posts.I guess everyone is out of oil ........
I think I remember you saying that you had some sort of engineering background?
'and you find this strange?
Perhaps that explains a lot.
My take is also that the ear/brain combo does all the magic to recreate the experience - but the brain has only so much tolerance. Mix in too much unrelated material, distortion, and the brain makes an, unconscious, decision to reject what it has to process, as not "being worth the effort" - the sound is judged as poor. And there's a halfway house, where most audio replay is, where the brain has to work hard to sort things out - you can force it to some degree - and leads to the infamous "listener fatigue".
Luckily, on the other side of the coin, there is a point, at least for some people, where the level of disturbing, non-message related content drops sufficiently that the brain goes into a freeflowing, effortless mode of digesting what it picks up, and the message sent to your consciousness is that the sound is 'real'. The trick, therefore, is to advance the 'quality' of the sound to that point, where the trigger goes off in your head and the sound is soaked up by the hearing system without "niggles" ...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.