Quite a few don't.
I keep a link to a theory site in my signature. You would be amazed how many people --even in my short tenure here-- have told me they don't need to know "that sh__"... with a soldering iron warming up next to them.
Let me give you just a simple example to ponder ... I recently had a discussion with a young adult who tried every way you can imagine to tell me that a cellphone doesn't use radio... it uses digital emr... without the first clue that he was actually talking about radio waves.
Ahh crap, I probably shouldn't do this but...
Correlations between measurements and perceptions...
Ok... Check this thread... Troublesome wall echo ... a subjective perception of echo and boominess solved by measurements and science.
Or the final test of a bias adjustment... turning the volume almost all the way off and listening for distortion.
Or maybe the way we position our speakers for best sound then use REW to catalogue the differences.
To think that measurements can't show a shrill tweeter or that muddy midrange can't be seen on a frequency response test is just silly.
Correlations between measurements and perceptions...
Ok... Check this thread... Troublesome wall echo ... a subjective perception of echo and boominess solved by measurements and science.
Or the final test of a bias adjustment... turning the volume almost all the way off and listening for distortion.
Or maybe the way we position our speakers for best sound then use REW to catalogue the differences.
To think that measurements can't show a shrill tweeter or that muddy midrange can't be seen on a frequency response test is just silly.
Last edited:
Yeah it's a difference and a BIG one...
Another example... all the guys coming here asking for help fixing stuff. If they had the first clue how it actually worked they could probably fix it themselves. In case you haven't noticed in the last 13 or so years, this BBS is mostly those who know helping those who don't.
Another example... all the guys coming here asking for help fixing stuff. If they had the first clue how it actually worked they could probably fix it themselves. In case you haven't noticed in the last 13 or so years, this BBS is mostly those who know helping those who don't.
Its way OT for this thread but perhaps I don't hang out in representative threads. There is some of that going on, but its not the only thing. This is a form of social media and there are plenty here who don't come to learn but rather display knowledge. Those are people whose 'cup is already full'.
Those are quite large distortions which should be easy to measure and hear. How about smaller ones typical of class D amplifiers?
You're doing it again.
I provide you with distortion plots of an amplifier with and without a stage of integration in place in order to demonstrate a scenario and you tell me "There's a ton of science going on inside, and you ignore it at your own peril."
Did you notice that Fs is 500KHz and the loop runs out of steam at about 160KHz. Does that mean anything to you? I know. Next time I won't bother designing the loop and trust to you instead because 'arbitrary weight of science'.
At 500khz, you're talking about a transmitter, not an audio amp. Nobody and I do mean nobody is going to hear whatever you designed into that amp.
The mind boggles. We are talking about Class D here. You do know that Class D amplifiers switch at high frequencies. The 500KHz signal is 20dB down ref 1V, 100mV. Other stuff about wavelength and radiation.
Typical Douglas Blake. Don't bother taking your foot out of your mouth just cast slurs and put the other foot in as well. After all only Douglas Blake builds stuff. Douglas Blake has loads of experience of building stuff and patents. Blooming people building RF transmitters and calling them amplifiers. Whatever next?
...
Typical Douglas Blake. Don't bother taking your foot out of your mouth just cast slurs and put the other foot in as well. After all only Douglas Blake builds stuff. Douglas Blake has loads of experience of building stuff and patents. Blooming people building RF transmitters and calling them amplifiers. Whatever next?
...
Attachments
Last edited:
There is evidence that phase shift in the audio range due to limited bandwidth can be audible.
Douglas,
I don't like to pile on, however, you are asking for it just a bit with that wide net of generalized assumptions you've been casting about regarding the scientific knowledge of those who claim to hear differences in equipment. Just because we hear difference doesn't, at all, indicate that we lack technical knowledge. Indeed, this thread contains comments by a number of technically very competent contributors, each of whom also recognizes what their ear/brain systems frequently tell them. To reject the consistant message given by one's own senses is intellectually myopic.
It seems to me that there are, at least, two obvious alternative view for those who ALWAYS reject what their own ears tell them about music appreciation in favor what their eyes tell them via an spectrum analyzer display. However, spectrum analyzers don't appreciate music. Humans do. So, in order to reconcile conflicting evidence, the alternate conclusions seem to be to:
ONE: Declare the sensory observation half of the conflicting evidence to always be in error, to be some delusion. To believe this also requires belief in a mass delusion, bordering on hysteria, for so many experienced listeners to report the same observations. This is the conclusion you appear to draw. But isn't this conclusion, itself, rooted in poor science, as it simply discards that evidence which it cannot incorporate in to a coherent explaination? Are many subjective reports in error, likely so. Are they ALL in error, that seems very unlikely.
TWO: Acknowledge that, just perhaps, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your current philosophy. Just maybe, there is more to learn about the way the human ear/brain system identifies live sound versus reproduced sound, and therefore, more to learn about the full role which the behavior of reproduction equipmemt plays there on.
For example, the notion that music replay equipment should have zero distortion is an intellectual one. Sort of a Platonic ideal of purity. I find it no surprise that many of us with formal technical educations are more likely to adopt that Platonic view. This notion is, indeed, logical on it's surface, and would be entirely proper if music signals existed for appreciation by spectrum analyzers, rather than by humans. The observational, and frequently reported, evidence strongly suggests that the final stage of the recording/replay system chain is not fully accounted for. The human ear/brain element.
Of course, double-blind testing, and such, are objective tools intended to screen out psychological factors. Fair enough, however, when conducted only on devices having essentially identicle parameters across the board, they reveal no consistent audible difference. This is expected, just as one would expect two identicle units of the same model and production run to sound indistinguishable. What's naturally left out of such testing are comparisons between devices of significantly differeing parameters, or parameter dynamic behavior.
At an high level of holisitc system understanding regarding what to measure, in what context to measure it, and the subjective significance of that measurement, there undoubtedly will be found clear and scientific understanding of certain parameter behavior required to produce a given subjective perception of music replay. I suspect that there are a number of 'high-end' engineers whom already posses such knowledge. If they don't yet understand the exact parametric cause, then, at the least, they understand the human subjective effect.
There does seem to be a bit of an puzzling gray area here. Which inclueds a few components whose parameters behave dynamically in the same way as other subjectively well judged components, and which are themselves subjectively well judged, yet in which those same parameters measure at a low enough level that one wouldn't think their dynamic behavior should matter at all. As I've indicated, more seems yet to be learned about all of this.
Thanks for the good info Neil. 
I do wonder just how much the sound of the chips contributed to their popularity, and how much of it was the cheap and easy bandwagon. Audio can be very fad driven and Tripath became a fad. So much so that I had over a million hits on my Tripath amp mods and measurement website. Ten years ago I could pick out the Tripath amps by sound alone, in 2020 I seriously doubt that I could pick one out of a line-up.
What I wonder about is how they sound. I'm pretty sure the Tripath chips had a "sound" that made them popular. There were other reasons for their popularity, but the sound signature was probably a big factor. Do the new chips have that non-offensive sound that the Tripath did?
I do wonder just how much the sound of the chips contributed to their popularity, and how much of it was the cheap and easy bandwagon. Audio can be very fad driven and Tripath became a fad. So much so that I had over a million hits on my Tripath amp mods and measurement website. Ten years ago I could pick out the Tripath amps by sound alone, in 2020 I seriously doubt that I could pick one out of a line-up.
