not even going to reply to that Joshua, it seems the penny still hasnt dropped and you still dont seem to understand what a waveform is...
how can we possibly further develop technology using a testing regime that pleases people dissatisfied with current techniques, when it seems many cannot even understand what has already been achieved successfully? some seem to prefer to be baffled and stifled by mystery and magic where there is none left.
surely there is enough work to do in the areas that sorely need it?
how can we possibly further develop technology using a testing regime that pleases people dissatisfied with current techniques, when it seems many cannot even understand what has already been achieved successfully? some seem to prefer to be baffled and stifled by mystery and magic where there is none left.
surely there is enough work to do in the areas that sorely need it?
Last edited:
My point is plain and strait forward, when you make such statements:
You seem to reject the subjective completely, adhering only to measurements, while knowing that there are discrepancies between measurements and subjective evaluations of sound quality. It appears that you are stating that measurements alone are reliable, ignoring what you say you know about the limitation of measurements.
You just did what you said you are not going to do.
You are welcomed to go on thinking you have the answers and to stick to your 'understanding'.
I related to the correlation between recoded waveforms and music.
Obviously, when music is being played in any given place, the waveforms of the acoustic sound waves represent fully and exactly the music being played (sound-wise).
When that music is recorded and what we have are electronic waveforms, those electronic waveforms aren't a full and exact representation of the sound waves of the live music.
When people relate to electronic, recorded, waveforms as full and exact representation of the sound waves of live music - it is the beginning of the many erroneous assumptions about the correlation between live music and the reproduction of music.
I get everything you wrote.
Do you get that when in a blind test, by a group of people, it is proved that what measures better doesn't necessarily sound better - it demonstrates the limitations and inadequacy of measurements alone in evaluating the sound quality of audio reproduction gear?
Hi John,
You know (or should know) that I have high appreciation of you as an audio designer.
However, I'm utterly convinced that everything and anything I may write here is completely futile. As long as the majority of people cannot, or do not, distinguish between their beliefs and opinions, on one hand, and factual knowing, on the other hand - the facts of the matter cannot reach them.
The distinction between beliefs and opinions, on one hand, and factual knowing, on the other hand - can be attained only by each individual's own introspection - not by words coming from outside the individual.
I'm yet to see even a single individual who adheres to objective approach (that only measurements are valid) changing one's approach as a result of hearing, or reading, words of another individual.
Paper version only, I'm afraid. To summarize, Jack picked an amp circuit with poor PSR (my suggestion) and ran the tests as preference, not an input-output comparison. The results aren't at all surprising, but it was great that he actually did that.
Hi Demian,
I was referring to an article in Linear Audio Volume 4, where 13 different voltage regulators were examined. They were tested and then evaluated blindly by a group of experienced listeners. The 2 regulators that scored the 2 top positions in the listening tests measured worth than some others, who scored near the bottom of the list.
As for those who cannot distinguish between live music and a reproduction of recorded music - they are lucky, they can save a lot on the cost of their sound setup. (I'm not that lucky).
On this I already said I agree with you. Once we are left with those two (generally) approximations of the musical event we can only degrade the original.
True blind testsare very difficult. And the test in Linear Audio was more of a preference than an accuracy test making the results less useful ultimately.
Possibly the only way to really test is a brain scanner watching activity so the higher judgement and self interest processing areas are short circuited. I have heard of such testiing done in hearing aid research. I don't think the $$$ are in audio to support it.
Possibly the only way to really test is a brain scanner watching activity so the higher judgement and self interest processing areas are short circuited. I have heard of such testiing done in hearing aid research. I don't think the $$$ are in audio to support it.
You obviously weren't looking on the occasions when I have been corrected by others. I mean corrected on objective facts, of course (such as how exactly a particular circuit works). All that requires is a coherent argument, which if I wish I can independently check.Joshua_G said:
Subjective opinion is a different matter.
I suspect that Mr. Occam might tentatively suggest that could be explained by a preference for extra noise etc.? That is, we choose the simplest reasonable explanation of the observed facts. Postulating unknown unmeasured problems which overrride the effects of known measured absence of problems is not the simplest explanation - it might be right, but the burden of proof is on those who insist on it.
I have strived for decades to get a single or series of test measurements that will fully characterize an amplifier's quality. I thought that I had it, in 1990, when I made changes to an original design to make the HCA2200 mk1.
I chose an IC that was initially necessary to change easily from balanced to unbalanced input, in a configuration that I still can't understand how it would affect the sound in any significant way. I MEASURED the prototype and it met every test that I could think of, that might show a flaw, such as stability with cap load, order and amount of harmonic distortion at all levels, frequency response, etc. I was rather thorough as this was my first amp for Parasound.
Guess what! I didn't even bother to listen to it. We took it personally to Santa Fe, NM to the 'Stereophile' headquarters, and I gave a little talk about the innovations inside. Then I left Santa Fe, with Robert Hartley (now editor of TAS), further engaged in discussion until we got back to the airport. I was pretty darn sure of myself, and did I get BURNED! The amp FAILED the listening test with Stereophile, and then with local 'Golden Ears', so I had to do a re-design of the front end, in order to REMOVE the IC in front, and in desperation, I used an open loop jfet follower pair, to help with balanced input. This became the HCA2200 mk2. Guess what? We resubmitted it to Stereophile and it got what I originally thought it should get, a B rating.
Then I modified my OWN HCA2200 to remove the IC, then I did the same thing for my associate, Carl Thompsen (the T in CTC), and got the same success.
All he and I lost was balanced input drive, that we didn't use anyway, at the time.
Later, after the second review, I was asked what changed, and I mentioned that I removed the IC. Did I get into trouble! Walt Jung wrote a letter to Stereophile challenging the IC removal as anything significant. And my upgrade has been criticized as impossible to make a real difference (it didn't change the static measurements much) by the designer of the IC who is here with us today. What can I say? Should I have been stubborn and quit Parasound, after insisting that the amp was virtually 'perfect' in its price range? I will say that Parasound almost fired me for not listening to the amp extensively before we had it reviewed.
No, I am more pragmatic. I did an evaluation of the design and any potential problems and I solved the challenges in a different way. I could NOT be sure that it would work, but I suspected it might. And this is not the ONLY TIME since, that I have been 'burned' by overconfidence in my own design, without relying on listening evaluations. Similar 'failures' came later.
I chose an IC that was initially necessary to change easily from balanced to unbalanced input, in a configuration that I still can't understand how it would affect the sound in any significant way. I MEASURED the prototype and it met every test that I could think of, that might show a flaw, such as stability with cap load, order and amount of harmonic distortion at all levels, frequency response, etc. I was rather thorough as this was my first amp for Parasound.
Guess what! I didn't even bother to listen to it. We took it personally to Santa Fe, NM to the 'Stereophile' headquarters, and I gave a little talk about the innovations inside. Then I left Santa Fe, with Robert Hartley (now editor of TAS), further engaged in discussion until we got back to the airport. I was pretty darn sure of myself, and did I get BURNED! The amp FAILED the listening test with Stereophile, and then with local 'Golden Ears', so I had to do a re-design of the front end, in order to REMOVE the IC in front, and in desperation, I used an open loop jfet follower pair, to help with balanced input. This became the HCA2200 mk2. Guess what? We resubmitted it to Stereophile and it got what I originally thought it should get, a B rating.
Then I modified my OWN HCA2200 to remove the IC, then I did the same thing for my associate, Carl Thompsen (the T in CTC), and got the same success.
All he and I lost was balanced input drive, that we didn't use anyway, at the time.
Later, after the second review, I was asked what changed, and I mentioned that I removed the IC. Did I get into trouble! Walt Jung wrote a letter to Stereophile challenging the IC removal as anything significant. And my upgrade has been criticized as impossible to make a real difference (it didn't change the static measurements much) by the designer of the IC who is here with us today. What can I say? Should I have been stubborn and quit Parasound, after insisting that the amp was virtually 'perfect' in its price range? I will say that Parasound almost fired me for not listening to the amp extensively before we had it reviewed.
No, I am more pragmatic. I did an evaluation of the design and any potential problems and I solved the challenges in a different way. I could NOT be sure that it would work, but I suspected it might. And this is not the ONLY TIME since, that I have been 'burned' by overconfidence in my own design, without relying on listening evaluations. Similar 'failures' came later.
Yes.
There are two things to look at:
1. The degree to which the recorded electronic waveforms represent the actual acoustic sound waveforms that were recorded.
2. The ways and the degree the original recorded electronic waveforms are being degraded on each step and stage of the reproduction chain.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.