Hi,
Actually, the Human hearing operates on principles that are inherently extremely non-linear (to the point of creating positive acoustic feedback to make very low sounds audible). It is neither (in general) more or less sensitive than our electronic instrumentation, it is radically different, that is all.
It works just so radically different from our "linear HiFi System" model that it is very little surprise to ANYONE who knows the least about it that these linear models we apply to HiFi in the larger issues (but not the smaller ones) fail to provide us with information how to create either "good sound" or "credible illusions".
The human ear/brain system has so many massive blind spots, you can hide a multitude of "measured sins" in them, yet in other areas the sensitivity to "sins at the measurement limit" is ridiculously high.
Essentially to draw direct inferences about how the ear/brain is going to react from traditional audio measurements "is like asking whether the fatness of a pig is more or less green than the designated hitter rule.".
Of course, the usual Technocrati will simply ignore this and keep measuring what they measure and proclaim that it matters, because otherwise they not only would be out of a job, but their whole religion and ideology would come crashing down like a house of cards in a gale force wind...
Ciao T
Actually, the Human hearing operates on principles that are inherently extremely non-linear (to the point of creating positive acoustic feedback to make very low sounds audible). It is neither (in general) more or less sensitive than our electronic instrumentation, it is radically different, that is all.
It works just so radically different from our "linear HiFi System" model that it is very little surprise to ANYONE who knows the least about it that these linear models we apply to HiFi in the larger issues (but not the smaller ones) fail to provide us with information how to create either "good sound" or "credible illusions".
The human ear/brain system has so many massive blind spots, you can hide a multitude of "measured sins" in them, yet in other areas the sensitivity to "sins at the measurement limit" is ridiculously high.
Essentially to draw direct inferences about how the ear/brain is going to react from traditional audio measurements "is like asking whether the fatness of a pig is more or less green than the designated hitter rule.".
Of course, the usual Technocrati will simply ignore this and keep measuring what they measure and proclaim that it matters, because otherwise they not only would be out of a job, but their whole religion and ideology would come crashing down like a house of cards in a gale force wind...
Ciao T
Hi,
Doing well enough, he was trying to beat the Guiness world record for the biggest domestic bass horn last time we spoke...
Ciao T
Doing well enough, he was trying to beat the Guiness world record for the biggest domestic bass horn last time we spoke...
Ciao T
Well that depends, Thorsten. Are you talking about a pot-bellied pig or a razorback?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2R3FvS4xr4
Charles,
And the Bellman, sagaciously nodding his head,
Said "That must depend on the weather."
Ciao T
They sought it with thimbles, they sought it with care;
They pursued it with forks and hope;
They threatened its life with a railway share;
They charmed it with smiles and soap.
Lewis Caroll "The hunting of the Snark"
And the Bellman, sagaciously nodding his head,
Said "That must depend on the weather."
Ciao T
They sought it with thimbles, they sought it with care;
They pursued it with forks and hope;
They threatened its life with a railway share;
They charmed it with smiles and soap.
Lewis Caroll "The hunting of the Snark"
That s quite a piece of rethoric contradicting itself...
Neither religions nor ideologies use measurements of physical phenomenons
as the base of their beliefs, quite the contrary , they use dogmatic and totally
non verifiables assessements.
So in any case you can brand those relying to measurements as endoctrinated
by quasi religious beliefs, as such a state is reserved to the tenants of subjectivism
whose lackings are shamelessy negated, and worse, in a complete inversion of the truth,
the very same lackings are granted to the followers of objective measurements , while the burden
of the proof is curiously reversed, i.e, they are asked to provide evidences without using any measurements..
Hi,
I use religion / ideologies as applying to beliefs that are held in the absence of any proof or even against proof to the contrary.
The deeply held belief by some that "bad measurements = bad sound" and "good measurements = good sound" is one such belief that is religious in it's very nature.
In fact, it's adherents behave in a manner that only be described as religious, rehjecting obvious proof that they are wrong and attempting to attack and silence those that prsent opposing viewpoints.
First, those who insist that the current set of measurements (especially the single number ones, such as THD) are meaningful to illustrate audibility or not are CLEARLY indoctrinated with a belief that is not based in evidence. There is much evidence to the contrary in fact. This is not a tenet of subjectivism, it is a simple observation.
I would also suggest that burden of proof lies with those that advocate a certain type of measurement as indicative of actual, audible quality (not as an abstract quality, divorced from any issues of practicality), not with those who refuse to accept assertions that are not supported by proof.
Ciao T
I use religion / ideologies as applying to beliefs that are held in the absence of any proof or even against proof to the contrary.
The deeply held belief by some that "bad measurements = bad sound" and "good measurements = good sound" is one such belief that is religious in it's very nature.
In fact, it's adherents behave in a manner that only be described as religious, rehjecting obvious proof that they are wrong and attempting to attack and silence those that prsent opposing viewpoints.
First, those who insist that the current set of measurements (especially the single number ones, such as THD) are meaningful to illustrate audibility or not are CLEARLY indoctrinated with a belief that is not based in evidence. There is much evidence to the contrary in fact. This is not a tenet of subjectivism, it is a simple observation.
I would also suggest that burden of proof lies with those that advocate a certain type of measurement as indicative of actual, audible quality (not as an abstract quality, divorced from any issues of practicality), not with those who refuse to accept assertions that are not supported by proof.
Ciao T
I design speakers and I know that the flatter the FR, the lower the THD, the more gradual the dispersion as measured at given angles, the better they will sound. I never heard a bad speaker that measured well, or a good speaker that measured badly.
For stuff that (to me) always sounds the same if well executed -amplifiers, CD-players, cables, interconnects - measurements may have lost their relevance. Once below the threshold of audibility, there is not much to be gained by improving the numbers.
This is no excuse for deciding that engineering effort to reduce distortion in amplifers is not warranted, or for deciding that RIAA curves can be loosely applied, because the recording equalization was not that tight anyway.
However, since you make these assertions, why not tell us what it is that makes amplifiers and pre-amps that avoid the measurement sins, but somehow get the sonics absolutely perfect? Or is that another trade secret known only by the top 10?
I am afraid the you know what antenna and front end detector is in full overload here at the minute . . .
Last edited:
Good for you. There are $50 DVD players which play also CD and some even SACD. They measure excellent. So, you can have a sound system that suits you for very little money.
I'm not so lucky, since I hear differences that aren't shown in measurements. Therefore, I have to pay a lot of money in order to have a sound system that I really enjoy.
To me, sameness, mainly between a live human voice and its electronic reproduction, is the most important design criterium.
Hey John, pretty spiffy place you have here!
Only 13,000 posts to reach the conclusion that:
a) All electronics sound the same.
b) We should continue to reduce THD and RIAA equalization error without limit in order to ensure that although all amplifiers sound the same that some are more equal than others.
Maybe some day you will get to discuss advanced circuit design, but I think not at this website.
Only 13,000 posts to reach the conclusion that:
a) All electronics sound the same.
b) We should continue to reduce THD and RIAA equalization error without limit in order to ensure that although all amplifiers sound the same that some are more equal than others.
Maybe some day you will get to discuss advanced circuit design, but I think not at this website.
Hi,
Why not? Please make your case.
Why is "reduced THD" a good thing?
Why is a playback equalisation that very accuratly does not follow the equalisation when the LP was produced a good thing?
What IS your excuse for promoting such complete hogwash which is clearly and obviously in contradiction to reality?
Actually, given that the research on the human hearing system is well documented, I think I let you read yourself.
Quite clearly it is.
Ciao T
Why not? Please make your case.
Why is "reduced THD" a good thing?
Why is a playback equalisation that very accuratly does not follow the equalisation when the LP was produced a good thing?
What IS your excuse for promoting such complete hogwash which is clearly and obviously in contradiction to reality?
Actually, given that the research on the human hearing system is well documented, I think I let you read yourself.
Quite clearly it is.
Ciao T
The same arguments are cycled through every 1000 or so posts. Order another round , sir . 
- Status
- Not open for further replies.