A fly will retort (they do-it all the time) that *you can* code them by yourself.
What ? You don't want to spend a year to prepare each simulation in a little more accurate way, while it takes 4 hours to build a prototype ?
Think twice, it can-be a good investment if you could code a virtual auditor, and get definitively rid of all those hours lost in listening music...
Only a fly takes a hammer handle for an airport and can imagine to build duty free shops in-it.
Ordinary people plant nails with them ;-)
Last edited:
Agreed completely, it's in accord with my own experience.
However, it looks like the vast majority of the participants here belong to the 'blind faith in measurements' camp, so your (and few others) words and testimonies fall on deaf ears. The only expected outcome on the forums here is renewing the never-ending flame war.
It cannot be otherwise, as those people holding a blind faith in something do not let themselves 'be confused by the facts'. They always have excellent 'reasoning' to 'prove' their viewpoint.
On another note, I do hear differences between various interconnect cables and power cables. The first time I heard it, it was in contradiction to my firm view on the matter. So, it's my experience, not any belief.
Eyes are not only off in eye lens refraction, but also in the projection axis.
The brain however is such an amazing thing, that it can rebuild an image, within a limited range.
A reason for most people not being able to distinguish small dioptre changes.
Comes a time when folks wish to switch from spectacles to contacts.
Contact lenses come in two flavors : large and soft, or small and hard (oops)
The transfer to softies is easy for a spectacles wearer, the eye is able to move while the lens remains (relatively) in position, like regular glasses.
Hard contact lenses move along with the eye though, due to the conical shape of the cornea in front of the iris.
The brain is forced to recalibrate itself, it can take weeks to re-adjust vision, some folks are even unable to.
Oops, comes a time when one is unable to differentiate 1/4 dioptre up/down with a classic manual phoropter.
It becomes a guessing game with 50/50 odds.
It's not what one sees, but what one Thinks to see.
Comes a time when one wishes to get rid of glasses/contacts altogether, and go for an eye correction by laser beams.
To receive both a measurement by manual phoropter, plus by autorefractor, to discover that when it's up to the brain, it picks the wrong 0.25D value out of the two.
Older folks can choose to have one eye lasered for myopia, the other one for hyperopia.
Beauty of the brain is that it can adapt, pick the master+slave according to the view distance.
If vision can be fooled so easily, ears are a stroll in the park.
(around age 20, I had an accident and burned my entire face. spent a month wearing a synthetic skin stand-in, blind for a week, also cost me some vision. thanks to Fourier algorithms, currently have 20/20 vision. recent year technology even goes beyond that, as per JCX's post)
Last edited:
Admittedly, it is infuriating to watch how the so-called and sometimes self appointed "audio experts" are using LTspice simulations (without any good understanding about the tool features, and on how to analyze and check the simulation results) to support their uncontrolled subjective opinions (and promote what they believe to be the best thing since sliced bread in audio). Only to declare their mistrust in simulation and simulation tools, and fall back to the "I know what I hear" stance, a few posts down the road.
Common misunderstandings are (to mention only a couple) simulating distortions based on linear macromodels (and then promoting like 0.00001% distortion results), feedback, loop gain and stability margins analysis (and then promoting either wrong stability numbers or criteria).
If anyone is interested 
I've put a couple of files on Dropbox where you can listen to an LM4562 buffer driving either just the ADC input or ADC plus 100 ohm loading.
Given all the recent interest over the last few days in feedback network impedance and driving ability it seemed a fun thing to try out.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ever...ng-test-opamp-driving-low-impedance-load.html
I've put a couple of files on Dropbox where you can listen to an LM4562 buffer driving either just the ADC input or ADC plus 100 ohm loading.Given all the recent interest over the last few days in feedback network impedance and driving ability it seemed a fun thing to try out.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ever...ng-test-opamp-driving-low-impedance-load.html
If anyone is interested
Given all the recent interest over the last few days in feedback network impedance and driving ability it seemed a fun thing to try out.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ever...ng-test-opamp-driving-low-impedance-load.html
Y is without R6
-RNM
I really don't think there's any conflict, measurements to ensure all is really working as supposed to, then listening for quality assessment. I don't think there's any other way to design audio equipment. those with specs alone are as blindsided as those that believe that audio design can do just fine without.
Simulations and measurements are "just" engineering tools.
FEM, CFD and CAD makes it possible to design and build F1-cars, wind-tunnel testing quantifies your gains and loses, Racing gives you the answer.
IRL- listening always holds the truth and this is where the real test is. One can just look to bankrupt über engineered Halcro to see that good specifications are not enough.
Simulations and measurements are "just" engineering tools.
FEM, CFD and CAD makes it possible to design and build F1-cars, wind-tunnel testing quantifies your gains and loses, Racing gives you the answer.
IRL- listening always holds the truth and this is where the real test is. One can just look to bankrupt über engineered Halcro to see that good specifications are not enough.
Adding the sweeping sinusoidal signal from a generator with the same delayed will give-you this kind of response curve:
http://www.techniquesduson.com/combfilter.jpg
Substracting them (don't look at the vertical scale) this kind:
http://www.duanrevig.com/Les_microphones_directifs_files/image049.gif
This is often used as a studio or guitar effect called "Flange" or "Flanger", and done by moving continuously and slowly the delay time while the instrument plays.
Note that the this phase and delay difference takes all his sense in electo-acoutic. When some move the respective distance (delay) of a tweeter from a bass speaker for they are 'in phase' at the crossover frequency , he says "put them in phase"
In fact, he is just changing the delay taken by the sound of one of them to reach the auditor's ears, but don't change the phases curves of each ones.
Last edited:
If anyone is interested
I preferred Y on my computer speakers.
The piano is both distorted and out of tune (oh those awfull harmonics !) to my ears.Thanks for trying it. We'll see if any others try it before revealing anything
So, i tend to prefer X, (More loaded, killing a little them, and bringing a little more body ?) (or less, allowing more dynamic on the fundamentals and not adding its owns ?)
I think Y is not loaded, but I need an other source to figure out what's from the recording and what's from the system.
Anyway, the difference is obvious.
btw: i listened throw a porta pro headphone just plugged in my computer: my hify is in a truck on the road to Portugal, not the good conditions.
Last edited:
Concerning designing, you are absolutely correct.
For me, as a consumer, measurements results are utterly meaningless.
Yet, when I build audio gear, I measure it first and then listen. The measurements wouldn't tell me how it may sound, it's only to ensure that there are no design/building errors.
Its hard to concentrate on something so badly recorded, and sounding so disagreable, yes.
Mooly, if you are looking for a good piano jazz track, try, from Don Pullen album "Sacred Common Ground" -> "Common Ground".
If you can afford the sadness and the revolt of this pianist, improvising in the recording studio he was working in at this time, just back from the hospital where he was said that he had a cancer and few months left to live..
Last edited:
Let's assume that everything you said is eaxctly so.
1. Chances are you will find three people, picked at random, who will much sooner agree that between A, B and C, the C TV set has the best picture, than that any of the three amps sounds the best. That flies in face of your thesis that if the eyes can fool the brain so, the ears will be a pushover. My entire life's experience is exactly the opposite, it's is MUCH harder to get people to agree on sound than on vision.
2. Whatever the brain does, however it does it, it does the same for natural unplugged music and electronically replayed music. Unless you were dead sober the first time and dead drunk the second time, the way it works will be the same. As opposed to a colour picture, our brain ma be able to make a pretty certain decision what was live and what was not, what was pčayed by amp A and what by amp C. Not guranteed every time, to be sure, but if discrimination is present, it can be able to do that. This again points out the fact a visual picture is processed by simple and/or less numerous algorithms than the sound. Not to even mention the fat that our sight is at best 180 degrees, while our sound detection is 360 degrees.
Therefore, I think your analogy is way off centre. Hearing seems to be in a class all of its own.
Last edited:
Why do we keep talking vision, we have one focal point, everything else is blurred, not so with listening, theres absolutely no valid ground for comparison. Hearing is by far the most sophisticate sensory organ we have.
Studies with blind people have revealed that we even poses BAT like sonar capabilities.
Right now there are extensive studies here in Århus using music as elements in treating Depression. Brain-scans has shown that music from natural instruments has a profoundly different brain-activity pattern than processed and synthesized music.
Music and hearing is a strong cocktail, getting it right makes people smile and cry at the same time.
Studies with blind people have revealed that we even poses BAT like sonar capabilities.
Right now there are extensive studies here in Århus using music as elements in treating Depression. Brain-scans has shown that music from natural instruments has a profoundly different brain-activity pattern than processed and synthesized music.
Music and hearing is a strong cocktail, getting it right makes people smile and cry at the same time.
Any way, both our ears and our eyes are build for our survival.
They both works on the recognition of known objects forms, movements, sounds)...
I's hard to separate eyes from ears, as the natural reflex, when something is heard, is to point our vision to the previously localized location of the sound's source to get more informations.
Optical or sound effects, or both together, build with very unnatural artifacts in order to false our perceptions is, in a way, the opposite of the hifi, were we try to mimic the reality, and in an other way, very similar in the sens we use very unnatural processes to "make believe" music reproduction sound as natural as possible.
Science or illusion ?
Chose your side, or, better, use both. ;-)
They both works on the recognition of known objects forms, movements, sounds)...
I's hard to separate eyes from ears, as the natural reflex, when something is heard, is to point our vision to the previously localized location of the sound's source to get more informations.
Optical or sound effects, or both together, build with very unnatural artifacts in order to false our perceptions is, in a way, the opposite of the hifi, were we try to mimic the reality, and in an other way, very similar in the sens we use very unnatural processes to "make believe" music reproduction sound as natural as possible.
Science or illusion ?
Chose your side, or, better, use both. ;-)
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.