Reading the article puts a far more intelligent slant on the "Challenge", which has nothing to do with amplifiers sounding the same - rather it's that someone "skilled in the art" can adjust the distortion behaviour of their own creation to match another, which he was able to do after a number of attempts.
The telling bit is this ...
Last edited:
Are we sure about that? Is the calibation being done on a dynamic or static image - and even if the readings of static behaviour were slightly askew would the calibrator think that he had a faulty set, or merely that its behaviour was somewhat eccentric, because of less than ideal engineering, and do the best with what he had?
No, they did Carver's evaluation ears-only. Their "normal" method is to have no controls whatsoever.
edit: My apologies- this particular link was to their uncontrolled test.
"I am fine with believes as long as they are expressed as such.
But believes don´t really fit in the scientific framework."
Jakob, you are just plain argumentative or a troll.
Are you a trained psychologist?
I think the whole point I've been stressing is that any claims made about differences in sound need to be substantiated, and especially so when the effects are small.
I quoted an example above in jest - but it's actually a serious point: The CEO of a well known high end company would have us believe, without proof other than his word, that raising the cables off the ground makes a difference in the sound for the better. And then, in a further claim, the type of would block makes difference.
But believes don´t really fit in the scientific framework."
Jakob, you are just plain argumentative or a troll.
Are you a trained psychologist?
I think the whole point I've been stressing is that any claims made about differences in sound need to be substantiated, and especially so when the effects are small.
I quoted an example above in jest - but it's actually a serious point: The CEO of a well known high end company would have us believe, without proof other than his word, that raising the cables off the ground makes a difference in the sound for the better. And then, in a further claim, the type of would block makes difference.
Why would you not accept that claim? Because you deny placebo effect? If he's claiming you'd hear an improvement then that's another matter entirely but you haven't said that's his claim.
If we can't hear any difference, and all is just imagined, then why is the exprience so different in every room I walked into at the recent CES. If we can't hear why then bother, let's step back and let the computer industry take over, after all it's so practical with the digital streaming. Or on second thought why don't we make standards for food, same thing must apply there, an orange is an orange and all oranges taste the same, that is if you eat them more than 5mins apart.
Last edited:
I would worry about 1 mic covering the whole audio range. But I do think it is one area that will improve over time... If the never ending downgrading of music for mobile devices ever stops, at the rate its going we will loose the ability to hear any frequency below 60Hz in a few generations.
From the website selling myrtle (sic) wood blocks:
So, yes, he is (or at least his marketing dpt is doing it for him) making a claim about what we're supposed to hear.
If my monitor is broken I would either get it fixed or buy a new one, like all tools I use in my life I go for the best I can afford and look after them. Broken devices have no role in my existence.
Arguing about possible faulty equipment is silly, if its broke fix it or bin it.
Yeah, and what you'd find then is when you look at the print you made with your calibrated printer using the paper profile developed to ensure neutrality, in the daylight light box, it doesn't look the same as it did on the monitor.
I used to know guys like you who couldn't make a decent B/W print, because they couldn't follow the instructions on the bottle of developer. Not that they couldn't understand the words, just something in their psychological makeup meant they were programmed to fail, by hook or by crook.
Last edited:
That does seem an unreasonable claim to me - my own nocebo effect will guarantee I hear no improvement. I can only suggest not parting with any of the folding stuff, I most certainly shall not.
On music with wideband frequency content, the higher frequencies "ride" on the lower and are not crossing zero
as much as they would otherwise. Thus the test music chosen will likely affect the audibility of crossover distortion.
A solo clarinet, for example, should be a good test.
Last edited:
Yes, very probably. Tho I don't think it should be seen as a "school of thought". Yours, your opinions, on the other hand, can be seen as a "school of thought".
I would expect the opposite- a clarinet's waveform looks very much like a square wave, rich in high order harmonics. I'll play around with my DAW and see if it's something I can use to generate files of music with added crossover distortion.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.