It was a pretty poor conspiracy, getting the conference paper published!
At least these guys were honest enough to point a significant flaw in their setup- a slightly different noise for start-up between the formats. Hats off to them for that level of integrity.
What conspiracy?
I told you already (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/loun...ch-preamplifier-part-ii-8530.html#post4788479) that it was just you making up a conspiracy story, although i´ve written something different.
What might one mean in technical terms by ' chopping up a signal at a high frequency' ?
You clearly inferred that golden ears were real and I asked for evidence of that. Evidence that is missing. You could have at least linked to this
AES E-Library A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Of course whether they can tell SACD from red book doesn't really help as to the limits of human perception in terms of FR changes and distortion.
AES E-Library A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Of course whether they can tell SACD from red book doesn't really help as to the limits of human perception in terms of FR changes and distortion.
If you want to talk about the evidence of golden ears, why was your first question about "conspiracy" ?
This is an interesting study; take a look at fig 2. It shows in the top half that untrained listeners do no better than about 50-50 chance.
But the lower half shows that with training, scores improve to an average of 60%.
So next time you buy hi-res stuff, demand a proper training course so you will be able to hear what you shelled out for
Jan
Were the participants selected randomly from the general population? What about a control group? Did the study investigate the effects of training? Suppose you got 110 participants and gave them 100 questions each to determine their IQ, or something like that. Say no one scored more than 143. So, would that mean we could finally lay to rest that any possibility for someone to score an IQ of 160? No, of course not, and we all know it.
What seems to being going on is that the nature of the testing is like medical research, which hearing research essentially is. And there have been lots of problems in that area with studies that later turned out to be mistaken in their conclusions. It's a hard area to work in.
However, in areas like political debates, it is the norm to point to whatever evidence supports one's views, since it's not about finding truth, it's about winning. The debaters have already decided what side they are arguing for and their purpose is to sway undecided people in the desired direction. Any study with results one likes is fine to use if it helps to win the debate.
Sure. If you want to be an engineer, or play a musical instrument, it also helps to get training. That is, if you want to be good at it.
No, and that doesn't matter for the specific question being asked. It might help to read the paper and understand the hypothesis being tested before rambling.
Just reminding you what you said
Still waiting for some evidence of people saying it cannot be true.
I haven't changed a single thing in what I'm saying. Sorry if I'm not explaining it well. However from my perspective you're just trying to get a rise out of discussion with me when you talk about back peddling, and standing by. If you think I've changed what I'm saying please read over my posts again, I'm certainly not doing that.
The sound you hear can be defined poorly due to noise in electronics, and can only lose more definition as it interacts poorly with the environment. Horns prevent this double loss of definition, as your ears perceive it. But the less noise causing problems within the electronics, the better defined the sound will be. I suppose you could argue that, hey, why not use horns and low noise electronics. There's nothing wrong with that, surely, but I'm saying satisfaction may be achieved without both.
That's certainly discussing ideals, as the real world examples still appear like horns are often being used to make bad electronic designs sound good. Geddes would be an example since he uses poor amplification and such. I hear tale that you're so impressed by his speakers that his poor performance electronics are an afterthought.
Last edited:
It might take me a minute to find a page about it with official numbers. But my understanding was that it was along the sort of turning the signal on and off rapidly at a few hundred kilohertz or such, as it played.
That's my experience and opinion also.
Not so much 'destroy' the sound as add a (low level) noise that causes harshness in the overall sound...lows get 'lumpy' sounding, mids and highs get a 'grainy/brittle' quality that is uncomfortable long term, especially with the system running at decently high SPL.
They do change system noise, but it's more like they are 'EQing' system noise, making the system noise more objectionable, particularly in the vocal/mids and highs.
Yadi-yadi-ya, we all know the spec sheets say that clipon ferrites should have 'no' effect until up into Mhz.
Maybe the system subjective effect I describe is due to non flat attenuation of RF junk, dunno.
I do know however, that I hear this effect in any system that I have tried clipon ferrites on, and that the 'signature' is the same for this particular ferrite formulation.
On AC powercable, line level cables, or speaker cables, same 'signature'.
Oh and BTW, I have done independent sighted AB testing with multiple others, and the descriptions of the subjective changes are the same from each party.
Dan.
CH says ferrites, even on the mains side, can destroy the sound - are you using iron core inductors? Be careful on this point. Further, maple cable lifters will reduce common mode coupling between the cables and the floor. Failure to do this causes broadband standing waves and that of course can also result in muddled sound from non horn speakers. Alternatively, you can just go for book shelf ones and hang the cables over the drapes.
More L8r
Who's CH again?
The only inductors I haven't had success with in any of my own application is clamp on ferrite beads; they primarily have ruined sound even though they work correctly in my CD player (not my design). Outside of ferrite beads I use CMC's and DMC's all the time, can't appreciate them enough.
None of that's probably important to you though, since my best guess is you're trying to be an *******.
This is completely false. Due to their high sensitivity and directivity, horns will make shortcomings in electronics more audible if anything.
And don't believe everything you supposedly hear about me - I have no idea what these Geddes speakers are or how they sound, I haven't been within a 1000 miles of them.
I do know that his speakers have a good reputation, for what that is worth. What I know of his electronics is that they are sensible good amplifiers. But hey, if you think anything under $10k can't sound good, then maybe you get to call them 'poor electronics' I guess.
I think you really need a reality check.
Jan
You're talking about artifacts. Noise in electronics is not necessarily, or even commonly, represented as artifacts. That makes the assumption that high sensitivity devices suffer the most from noise within electronics not fully correct. Perhaps your definition of noise is different than mine? I don't speak of it in audibility, but mere presence; something measurements show.
Sorry what have I heard about you? Nothing I know of...
Geddes personal electronics are not sold items. By the standards in this thread they objectively would not measure well, is their quality, as I've been told. The point is he believes his speakers overcome the electronics. Please don't mistake this as my only observational point.
I ask you please refrain from inflammatory statements like, "I think you need a reality check." They're not constructive for the forum at all, but provide great bait for me to take what I consider a non-personal discussion, into one that only goes a negative direction. I come here to enjoy a wealth of knowledge, much well beyond my own, not to be **** on because I've made an observation.
Sorry what have I heard about you? Nothing I know of...
Geddes personal electronics are not sold items. By the standards in this thread they objectively would not measure well, is their quality, as I've been told. The point is he believes his speakers overcome the electronics. Please don't mistake this as my only observational point.
I ask you please refrain from inflammatory statements like, "I think you need a reality check." They're not constructive for the forum at all, but provide great bait for me to take what I consider a non-personal discussion, into one that only goes a negative direction. I come here to enjoy a wealth of knowledge, much well beyond my own, not to be **** on because I've made an observation.
Last edited:
No, not randomly drawn from the general population and no, the effect of training was not investigated within this experiment.
A control group is not needed (wrt this kind of tests) as the Nullhypothesis is H0: p=0.5 and the binomial distribution to test against is already known.
Absolutely; this Detmolder experiment is an good example that even experiments carefully planned and executed can still be subject to confounding variables.
Sad but true indeed. The discussions about results of experiments shows that , and it is the reason why i consider this PCM/DSD study as an perfect example to explain my assertion.
Usually these experiments need replications, but replications are already a problem within other fields of science and it is an exaggerated problem in the audio field.
There is a –6.6dB at the input of the DSP ( input overload margin) and a –1.8 dB at the High channel Out.
It seems they are relying on the architecture of the DSP chip theu use.
e.g. the ADAU1701 of the old MiniDSP can take 24dB of combined DSP equalization boost on any particular frequency with no overload (I’ve tested it with single frequency sweep).
There is a passive x-over/L-Pad btn power amp out and compression driver coils. Some 9dB in-band attenuation with this (plus the impedance resonance peak taming).
Do there two plots satisfy you? (I’ll ask my commission from JBL)
JBL Master Reference Monitor - Page 74
Testbericht - JBL M2 - Master Reference Monitor - Monitor für große Studios und Abhörräume / SOUND & RECORDING Ausgabe 12/2014
George
Attachments
I know what i wrote, but still there is no conspiracy mentioned.
"...began endless debating, why this can´t be true" is clearly different from "scientists trying to hide..." , isn´t it?
Evidence is to be found in the results of the PCM/DSD experiment and SY did already helped in providing an example of the debate why it couldn´t be true.
Of course it is absolutely mandatory to mention all possible confounders but there is a difference between mentioning a variable that could have influenced the results or just shooting from the hip that this variable _had_ influenced the results.
If you compare this experiment with another - obviously seriously flawed experiment - study like the Meyer/Moran ( http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf ) along with the supplemental information ( BAS Experiment Explanation page - Oct 2007 ) you might ask if it got similar critique from SY . I can´t remember but maybe i missed it.
In case of Blech and Young it is worth to mention, that they provided additional questionaire asking for verbalization of percepted differences. The three listeners were experienced recording engineers (or students; in german Tonmeister or -studierende) but did not mention any noise signal in their description.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.