What do you define as "audio level anything"? Let's see, interconnects see voltages up to single volts, speaker cable 10's of volts., we're aiming for 120dB S/N ratios, which means uV's of fluctuations in the copper are meaningful -- let's be generous and say 10's of uV could be troublesome. Triboelectric spikes have no trouble going into mV or better, depending upon just about everything. Where's the magic measuring device which tells us there isn't a potentional problem somewhere?
Frank
Or Sancho Panza trying to demonstrate that those giants are just windmills ?
Jneutron, are-you riding a mule ?
Interesting the thrashing around here about the properties of cables -- I have very little interest in cables, what bothers me is that every cable has an end, typically two ends for some reason
, and that's where all the problems, for me, arise. Hmmm, two bits of extremely rough, at the level where it counts, metal vaguely touching each other, held in that position sometimes more by luck than anything else, and that's supposed to deal with 120dB S/N transmissions ... good luck, gentlemen ...Frank
Surely someone of your intelligence and aural acuity will find it easy to devise a Blind Listening that doesn't mask audible differences? Have you tried?
I've never claimed that you can't hear differences between capacitors, speaker cables bla bla. Just that the people who claim to be able to hear these differences are often (always?) the ones who are deaf. See Absolute Listening Tests bla bla
Conversely, I've had people on my listening panel who have incredible hearing. Some of them have reliably picked out differences I would not have thought possible.
Who do you think I'll listen to?
BTW, the people who do well in Blind Listening Tests have to have absolute trust in what they hear. These true golden pinnae are just as opinionated and prejudiced as the most rabid self-declared Golden Pinnae. When they try to guess what they are listening to, they invariably make fools of themselves.
A big part of doing well in Blind Listening Tests is not to be afraid of making a fool of yourself but to say what you hear ... even if its, "I can't hear any difference." The evil person conducting the test might just have made 2 of the 3 presentations the same.
Last edited:
Too late, this is on Google, now !
May-i have your address to send-you some electrons from my AC plug, in order you can tell-me if they sound better or worse than the ones on your AC plug ?
What you're probably thinking of here is intensity of sound: normal hifi goes loud, but doesn't go intense. What does that mean? Real instruments, when played fortissimo near to you, create a sound field that seems to overwhelm you, subjectively goes through your whole body, fills the perceived space. And, yes, that's what an audio system should do too, but typically doesn't because it generates too much distortion when asked to reproduce elevated sound pressures, the classic PA sound.
I'm very aware of that difference, so when I say I'm not happy with the sound it means that it has dropped back to just being "loud", from being capable of creating a subjectively intense sensation. It's all a matter of the degree of distortion that is perceived ...
Frank
Last edited:
Okay,
Someone set me straight on this one. A friend told me long ago that you can not accurately do a blind listening test that is accurate if two different sets of speakers are in a room at the same time. That the moving cone and air volume of one box if ported will affect the sound of the speaker under test. I always imagined having to use a rotary table so the two sets of speakers move and take the same position and that you would either have to seal the speaker not under test at the time and cover over both the port and cones or revolve one into a closed space. Any opinions on that assumption, I'm sure there will be many! Go for it.
Someone set me straight on this one. A friend told me long ago that you can not accurately do a blind listening test that is accurate if two different sets of speakers are in a room at the same time. That the moving cone and air volume of one box if ported will affect the sound of the speaker under test. I always imagined having to use a rotary table so the two sets of speakers move and take the same position and that you would either have to seal the speaker not under test at the time and cover over both the port and cones or revolve one into a closed space. Any opinions on that assumption, I'm sure there will be many! Go for it.
Gentlemen, all this stuff about picoseconds in cables is most interesting but can we get back to REALLY IMPORTANT STUFF? We need to help JC.
Why does Blowtorch, with its 50 yr pedigree, not do well on the important Hirata test?
Why does Quan think Blowtorch will fail his PIM test?
Are you guys claiming JC's cables are not up to the task?
Yes, I tried blind listening tests which don't mask audible differences. I found out that I hear the very same things blind and sighted alike. Which is why I have absolute trust in my ears.
Hi Frank,
Again, AFAIK, no sound system in the world, at any price, will fool a professional musician to think one hears a live performance, even with a single solo acoustic instrument, let alone a symphonic orchestra, or even chamber music.
Try it and find out for yourself.
I don't think I know all the reasons for it – and I don't mind much the reasons. My point is that this is the way things are.
To my view, it shows that even for those people who aspire at the greatest music realism possible, complete realism is unattainable, at any price. Hence, compromises are unavoidable. Now, each person has some personal preferences, some people prefer better closeness to realism on certain aspects of music realism, while other people prefer other aspects. This is why when it comes to high sound quality of sound setups, personal taste and preferences play a role in each individual's choice of components.
I can pontificate at length on the truth of this but its simple to deal with this objection.
Just remove the other speakers from the room.
The logistics include a suitable door, trolleys, marked positions on the floor and of course skilled porters.
And BTW, those who claim this invariably have no problem hearing their 'chalk & cheese' differences with other speakers in the room when they can see what they are listening to.
If a Golden Pinnae brings his favourite speaker to be included in the Blind Listening Test, THEY set it up with the ancillaries of their choice first. This means the Listening Room set up is optimised (by them) for their favourite.
The other speaker(s) in the test must somehow fit in. This is most inconvenient when their favourite speaker is an electrostatic or dipole.
I'm prepared to bend over backwards to meet the requirements of the Golden Pinnae in my Blind Listening Tests but stop short of an O2 free Listening Room
Essentially, the sound from at least ONE of the presentations must sound good to them. Otherwise the test is declared invalid. That's why they are heavily involved in the setup of at least one of the presentations.
Would you care to list the things you have picked out in a Blind Listening Test?
Any details of how the test was carried out and the results?
Always interested in evidence of true golden pinnae cos they are so rare.
Help with my Top Ten list for Holidays --
I need help in finishing my Top Ten reasons Why you're Not getting a present from me -->
1. The Tattoo parlor was out of gift certificates.
2. The Dog ate your present, but you're welcome to try and get it back.
3. I did buy you a gift, but it crawled out of the box and got away.
4. You still owe me $20.
5. I couldn't remember if you already had a nose ring.
6. I thought a large check was too impersonal.
7. ?
8. ?
9. ?
10. ?
I need help in finishing my Top Ten reasons Why you're Not getting a present from me -->
1. The Tattoo parlor was out of gift certificates.
2. The Dog ate your present, but you're welcome to try and get it back.
3. I did buy you a gift, but it crawled out of the box and got away.
4. You still owe me $20.
5. I couldn't remember if you already had a nose ring.
6. I thought a large check was too impersonal.
7. ?
8. ?
9. ?
10. ?
um - your EM may be good but your audio instrumentation seems weak
modded the interaural time delay signal demo http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/223748-time-domain-distortion-2.html#post3245634
shows fft has no probelm resolving this - slowed to 200 Hz, added 100 mV white noise to sim with 1 V pk raised sine enveloped 200 Hz
I hope you can manage better S/N even in the real word, heck, even with a PC motherboard soundcard
Attachments
Last edited:
I don't owe anybody any proof.
Anyhow, whatever I'll write wouldn't move you from your present stand, so why bother. Your belittling expressions shows accurately what you stand is.
Sorry, I haven't got such a person on hand, and of course it would be easy for him to discover the "truth", by inviting a response from the supposed player. If you make it an intellectual exercise for someone to determine something, they can rev up their perceptive focus, and then tune into tiny clues like the noise levels, or an edit cut, or even the fact that the person is playing "too perfectly"!
What I worry about is whether I perceive the reproduction as being convincing, not someone else. And I have found that to be achievable.
I've been building up a repertoire of understanding of why systems sound convincing, or not, over the years, and I'm quite comfortable with my knowledge to this point. The reasons why playback works, or doesn't, at creating an illusion are extremely important, because that understanding can transform the capabilities of a system.
There are a number of elements: the system must be able to go loud without tonal changes, a crescendo must be handled as comfortably as a pin drop; low level detail must be fully extracted and put on display, any masking of this will not make it happen; and the critical part, high frequency distortion must be stamped out totally as an audible element, the merest smidgeon of this more than the ear/brain can filter out will immediately cause the illusion to collapse.
Frank
- Status
- Not open for further replies.