Did you miss my aim? I was inquiring about if what you saw was real. After all would anyone sane really spend time on this thread?
I took a week or two off and got a little closer to sane.
Or are you delusional?
Do you have any paperwork go prove it?
MMPI?
Have you been examined by a panel of experts to get a written opinion?
Have you ever been inside a mental health facility?
You know the kind of place where the individual rooms are not at all like the small rooms they show in the movies. The ones where the ceilings are 20' high. The windows are large to let in lots of sunlight but are sealed and 15' off the floor. There are no cords for the window blinds and even no places on the smooth walls where one could tie a bed sheet. All the furniture is bolted to the floor with security headed screws. All food is served in thick rubbery plastic ware.
Or perhaps in an intake facility? You know the room with no furniture other than a bench/bunk bolted to the floor, fiberglass walls, concrete or tile floors and a door closer to the one found on commercial refridgerators. Well sound proofed and even with all the ventilation smelling of human waste products.
Or maybe in a cell while they try to figure out what to do with you? You know the one with poured concrete walls. Painted pale green, one side all bars, with just a walkway three feet wide outside next to an open air space. Nothing resembling HVAC. Only a thin matress on a bolted in bed. Best of all the combination hand sink and toilet made of stainless steel?
A huh, keep hanging around, repeating "I am sane, I am sane..."
Best of all scrape into the floor audio circuit schematics.
Or you can violate the common practice here and be kind to others, write in a gentle tone and place criticism as a polite question. Do many folks do that here?
Last edited:
I don't know how anyone can test (DBLT) for detectable levels of distortion in amps or other.. Frequency variations, resonances... yes. But speakers have such gross amount of distortion as to mask most anything you might want to hear. And, mfr wont show their driver distortion. Freq response, yes. Polar freq, yes. Anything to do with freqs is a yes. But not distortion and one foot at 1 meter and 1 W is no where near satisfactory for distortion tests at realistic levels in a room. You need really low thd speakers which are few and far between.
I can believe that with even gross distortion - if one was very used to hearing it, might detect a small difference added. -- leaving the door open.....
Lower distortion drivers/sytems would help a lot IMHO. That's what I always use (and listening in the near/direct field)
THx-RNMarsh
I can believe that with even gross distortion - if one was very used to hearing it, might detect a small difference added. -- leaving the door open.....
Lower distortion drivers/sytems would help a lot IMHO. That's what I always use (and listening in the near/direct field)
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
The things we do for love (science)...
(Although I'm presently on work + vacation travel so have missed the rain past the craziness of last Monday)
Last edited:
Speaker distortion and amplifier distortion often tend to sound significantly different. Speaker distortion is mostly linear distortion and low order harmonic distortion. Higher order harmonic distortion produced by amplifiers can often be heard in some pretty common speakers, since it is so different sounding. Very little masking occurs.
Bill,
Will you never stop with all the surprising information? You went to school!!!
It is so nice to have room where even as an adult you can jump on the bed.
Or did your school rooms all have locked doors?
It is so nice to feel I fit right in here.
(One GF was a psychiatrist explains my room views. I may have another prison sound system install next year. But I suspect you all figured it out.)
Will you never stop with all the surprising information? You went to school!!!
It is so nice to have room where even as an adult you can jump on the bed.
Or did your school rooms all have locked doors?
It is so nice to feel I fit right in here.
(One GF was a psychiatrist explains my room views. I may have another prison sound system install next year. But I suspect you all figured it out.)
This is a popular myth sometimes supported by popular magazines as well, without any quantification. In fact, at least average contemporary amplifier design has negligible high order harmonic distortion (more than 100dB re basic fr. component, often more than 120dB) and it is far below high order harmonic distortion of any speaker. It is also a myth that speakers have only low-order distortion, which is based on much lower resolution of speaker spectral measurements, hardly higher than 80dB. Richard Marsh is completely right here, amplifier harmonic distortion is completely masked by speaker distortion for at least good amplifiers.
Noob Query.
In High fidelity production stages, do various distortion/s add up finally? OR suppose loudspeaker distortion is highest will it mask all other distortions ?
For example if I have a HiFi setup like Turntable-RIAA-Amplifier-Crossover-speakers will various distortion/s of each stage add up ?
Thanks and regards.
In High fidelity production stages, do various distortion/s add up finally? OR suppose loudspeaker distortion is highest will it mask all other distortions ?
For example if I have a HiFi setup like Turntable-RIAA-Amplifier-Crossover-speakers will various distortion/s of each stage add up ?
Thanks and regards.
Seems to me that those claiming there is some myth have their own burden of proof.
Last edited:
Hi Mark,
Even if they are correct? Speaker distortion completely swamps system distortion unless you have a pretty poor system (and those can be pretty expensive!). About the only other part of a sound system that can have high distortion is the turntable / cartridge combination. The next highest offenders would be tape reproduction and radio (FM or AM) reception. The rest of the components should have negligible distortion compared to the sources I listed.
Even the better tube-based equipment has distortion products that are far lower than what a speaker produces, and even the ambient background noise may swamp those components.
The burden of proof in these cases can be considered an intelligent comparison between environmental noise, speaker distortion and all other sources previously mentioned. It is bound to be different for the various systems and locations people are in. But the blanket statements you quoted will most often be true.
So, which parts of a statement do you find problematic, or are you just commenting in general? I would hope that you had some direct experience that differs from these quoted statements made by folks who are experts in this field. Even then, the odd experience that differs from the collective wisdom here can be considered a "flyer" in the data set. I did mention earlier that poor performing electronics do exist, and often at very high cost compared to the average equipment people are likely to own.
-Chris
Even if they are correct? Speaker distortion completely swamps system distortion unless you have a pretty poor system (and those can be pretty expensive!). About the only other part of a sound system that can have high distortion is the turntable / cartridge combination. The next highest offenders would be tape reproduction and radio (FM or AM) reception. The rest of the components should have negligible distortion compared to the sources I listed.
Even the better tube-based equipment has distortion products that are far lower than what a speaker produces, and even the ambient background noise may swamp those components.
The burden of proof in these cases can be considered an intelligent comparison between environmental noise, speaker distortion and all other sources previously mentioned. It is bound to be different for the various systems and locations people are in. But the blanket statements you quoted will most often be true.
So, which parts of a statement do you find problematic, or are you just commenting in general? I would hope that you had some direct experience that differs from these quoted statements made by folks who are experts in this field. Even then, the odd experience that differs from the collective wisdom here can be considered a "flyer" in the data set. I did mention earlier that poor performing electronics do exist, and often at very high cost compared to the average equipment people are likely to own.
-Chris
1.) Which represents a nearly classical non sequitur...
Furthermore it seems that the opposite conclusion would be much more reasonable, as it seems to be more important to get the "X factor" right than to have a specific circuit topology. (And of course it would depend on whether the "X factor" is really sort of "X" or just realization of best practice instead of thinking that it won´t make a difference, because it is "just audio" and the thresholds much higher ....)
2.) "open loop" and "closed loop" listening are imo quite misleading terms .
Remains to me as one of the most suprising facts that people claiming to do some serious sensory evaluation work nevertheless neglect nearly everything science already knows about that sort of tests. It seems to be more important to invent new buzz words and protocols than to do well planned and well executed controlled listening experiments
Hi Chris,
According to Geddes, Ed Simon, and my own experience, some people can hear small levels of distortion from system electronics using fairly normal speakers. But, it does depend on the particular nature of the distortion produced by the electronics.
Also, existing research as to what people can or can't hear only applies to maybe 90% - 95% of the population. People in the top 5% have never been seriously studied. According to Geddes, new tests would need to be developed to test hearing ability for that segment of the population. In particular, it seems to me there are some reasons to believe that conventional ABX testing may not end up being a useful way to test listening ability of the 5% group, perhaps somewhat analogous to what Geddes says about THD testing being of no value for determining amplifier quality. My own experience is also consistent with what Geddes says about a need for better double-blind listening test methods for the top 5% (I proposed a "sorting" test as one possibility, which could be done double-blind if software was made for it).
In addition, I quoted Ed Simon. In case you are not familiar with the project he was referring to in the quote, I believe he has a set of 10 identical circuit op-amp line amplifiers (circuits are identical, but op-amps are different) with G=10 in a sealed box. He is finding that people can tell the op-amps apart by listening, and presumably using normal speakers.
Based on what I quoted in my previous post, in the forgoing items, and from my own experience, it looks to me like some people who I would presume are probably in the 5%-never-studied-listening-ability part of the population can hear pretty small levels of amplifier distortion using normal speakers. Not that such people can always do it with perfect reliability, particularly for extremely low level distortion.
I am not aware of any evidence that would disprove what I said about hearing amplifier distortion with normal speakers, at least for some particularly good listeners.
EDIT: Since we know that speakers produce mostly low order harmonic distortion and some linear distortion, and that amplifiers can produce audible high order distortion (even if measured THD is low), and the listening abilities of the top 5% percent of the population have never been seriously studied, I don't see how what I said originally in reply to RNM could be known to be some kind of myth. I am not aware of any evidence proving there is some myth involved, and on the contrary, in light of the facts I find the myth claim to be an extraordinary one that requires extraordinary proof. So, can we please hear the proof?
According to Geddes, Ed Simon, and my own experience, some people can hear small levels of distortion from system electronics using fairly normal speakers. But, it does depend on the particular nature of the distortion produced by the electronics.
Also, existing research as to what people can or can't hear only applies to maybe 90% - 95% of the population. People in the top 5% have never been seriously studied. According to Geddes, new tests would need to be developed to test hearing ability for that segment of the population. In particular, it seems to me there are some reasons to believe that conventional ABX testing may not end up being a useful way to test listening ability of the 5% group, perhaps somewhat analogous to what Geddes says about THD testing being of no value for determining amplifier quality. My own experience is also consistent with what Geddes says about a need for better double-blind listening test methods for the top 5% (I proposed a "sorting" test as one possibility, which could be done double-blind if software was made for it).
In addition, I quoted Ed Simon. In case you are not familiar with the project he was referring to in the quote, I believe he has a set of 10 identical circuit op-amp line amplifiers (circuits are identical, but op-amps are different) with G=10 in a sealed box. He is finding that people can tell the op-amps apart by listening, and presumably using normal speakers.
Based on what I quoted in my previous post, in the forgoing items, and from my own experience, it looks to me like some people who I would presume are probably in the 5%-never-studied-listening-ability part of the population can hear pretty small levels of amplifier distortion using normal speakers. Not that such people can always do it with perfect reliability, particularly for extremely low level distortion.
I am not aware of any evidence that would disprove what I said about hearing amplifier distortion with normal speakers, at least for some particularly good listeners.
EDIT: Since we know that speakers produce mostly low order harmonic distortion and some linear distortion, and that amplifiers can produce audible high order distortion (even if measured THD is low), and the listening abilities of the top 5% percent of the population have never been seriously studied, I don't see how what I said originally in reply to RNM could be known to be some kind of myth. I am not aware of any evidence proving there is some myth involved, and on the contrary, in light of the facts I find the myth claim to be an extraordinary one that requires extraordinary proof. So, can we please hear the proof?
Last edited:
Hi Mark,
That was a considerate, studied response. I find myself agreeing with you as the normal electronics on a pair of good speakers can be audibly lacking. Certainly not to the flowery extent that "HiFi" reviewers go on about though.
So, those people who can hear the difference will discount it and avoid the industry entirely as a result. Their common response generally boils down to "yes, I can hear that X sounds better than Y, but it is a waste of money". The other response tends to be "I just want to hear music without dealing with the hassles that today's products tend to require". Hence the quick acceptance of sound bars on TV's.
Audio today is once again a hobby where most households use the equivalent of a table radio for musical entertainment, or personal earphone systems comprised of disposable hardware.
-Chris
That was a considerate, studied response. I find myself agreeing with you as the normal electronics on a pair of good speakers can be audibly lacking. Certainly not to the flowery extent that "HiFi" reviewers go on about though.
Yes, absolutely. This can be heard even in informal listening.
That is very probably true. This 5% would likely consist of several people who are not involved with audio and be overwhelmingly represented by women and young teenagers / children. This from my own experience in life.
You're absolutely correct on that score. I am surprised that there may be audible differences between the better op amps for audio.
My own direct experience also bears this out, so you'll have no argument from me on those points. Just as I've seen that the average listener does hear a difference, but doesn't act on the importance of this for the simple reason that the industry has abused the public horribly for a few decades now. The worst offenders sell in the "high-end" area of the market. But, "Mid-Fi" vendors have killed their own market for the most part through the abuse and untruths starting the the late 70's for some, and continues to this day.
So, those people who can hear the difference will discount it and avoid the industry entirely as a result. Their common response generally boils down to "yes, I can hear that X sounds better than Y, but it is a waste of money". The other response tends to be "I just want to hear music without dealing with the hassles that today's products tend to require". Hence the quick acceptance of sound bars on TV's.
Audio today is once again a hobby where most households use the equivalent of a table radio for musical entertainment, or personal earphone systems comprised of disposable hardware.
-Chris
I'm pretty sure psycoacoustic codecs have been tested by by many thousands of individuals
so we should have much better than just "what the 95% can hear" for them
and its been over a decade since higher bit rates of better encoders have surpassed 'transparent' and their artifacts were then amplified in tests to give relative rankings
so we should have much better than just "what the 95% can hear" for them
and its been over a decade since higher bit rates of better encoders have surpassed 'transparent' and their artifacts were then amplified in tests to give relative rankings
- Status
- Not open for further replies.