John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

[SY]

Dick, I call shenanigans. A frequency spectrum correlates perfectly with how people perceive tonal balance, level, phase anomalies, and distortion. It is indeed one tool among many, and quite a powerful one. You're perfectly aware that the FT and the original time series are interconvertible, containing exactly the same information, unless you deliberately didn't read the careful explanations by Dave, Scott, and me and never bothered to study integral transform methods in undergraduate engineering (or physics) courses.

I'm sensing a new High End Irrationalist meme developing.

[fas42]

Originally Posted by Wavebourn

I respectfully disagree. In one case it is "Try to not hear the system", in another case it is "Try to hear the system", but in both cases it is "Try", because it is evaluation

However, when you speak about listening... But it is hard for a designer not to evaluate, even when listening.

Different meanings of the word "try". Yes, if you're evaluating some performance parameter then you apply effort in a certain mental sense to focus on the particular attribute. But I'm using that word more "loosely", in the sense of having to apply largely subconscious concentration, in order to enjoy the the quality of musical reproduction ...

An analogy: a teacher of violinists listens to a master pupil playing an impressive piece on a superb instrument. Live. Everyone else is enthralled by the gloriousness of the sound, but, Terrible!, says the teacher, Technique was all over the place! Here, I'm on the side of everyone else ...

Frank

[scott wurcer]

Originally Posted by RNMarsh

The FFT for example is what it actually is and does what it does..... It doesnt correlate to what a group of people might say it sounds like. , RNM

No one made those claims, the FFT is a tool for signal analysis learn its capabilities and limitations or don't it's you're choice. BTW it's also an incredibly powerful tool in optics which they used to extract data from the broken Hubble before it was fixed.

[jacco vermeulen]

Originally Posted by scott wurcer

BTW it's also an incredibly powerful tool in

Introduction to Physical Oceanography : Chapter 16 - Ocean Waves - Waves and the Concept of a Wave Spectrum

[scott wurcer]

Originally Posted by jacco vermeulen

Introduction to Physical Oceanography : Chapter 16 - Ocean Waves - Waves and the Concept of a Wave Spectrum

Yes, it has applications even in the sloshing of waves.

[RNMarsh]

Originally Posted by SY

Dick, I call shenanigans. A frequency spectrum correlates perfectly with how people perceive tonal balance, level, phase anomalies, and distortion. It is indeed one tool among many, and quite a powerful one. You're perfectly aware that the FT and the original time series are interconvertible, containing exactly the same information,

I do understand what the FFT shows and it IS interconvertable. Does it correlate perfectly with every perception heard... really? Then we need to do a better job of explaining what people hear, is all. Thx -RNM

[RNMarsh]

Originally Posted by scott wurcer

No one made those claims, the FFT is a tool for signal analysis learn its capabilities and limitations or don't it's you're choice. BTW it's also an incredibly powerful tool in optics which they used to extract data from the broken Hubble before it was fixed.

I am not saying FFT doesnt do what it does and that it isnt important nor that it doesnt do what it does do.

I have never said anyone claimed other-wise rather --- rather that repeated explaining FFT theory and functionality isnt effective on most lay listeners (i do get it). Do we care? I dont know. We dont need to. But, seems like we might care to get ourselves across to the average guy better- maybe with other test which is more intuitive to the lay person..... even if it isnt as elegant as math and the FFT.

Once you have a bandwidth that is Dc to light and noise and thd are below thresholds and all.... the differences are likely to be found in the interfacing and over-all data thru-put end-to-end that is affected in processing. Nothing that cant be explained by FFt or any other test equipment of suitable sensitivity. But that by ignoring those issues, we arent ever going to convince the public.

I know there is enough info in the tests we do to explain what is heard or not heard. And, FFT does it for most everyone in science. Unfortunately, that isnt changing anything on the ground. The debate rages on.

If you had to teach elementary school kids these things --- how would you present info to them. -Dick.

[RNMarsh]

Originally Posted by SY

Dick, I call shenanigans. A frequency spectrum correlates perfectly with how people perceive tonal balance, level, phase anomalies, and distortion. It is indeed one tool among many, and quite a powerful one. You're perfectly aware that the FT and the original time series are interconvertible, containing exactly the same information, unless you deliberately didn't read the careful explanations by Dave, Scott, and me and never bothered to study integral transform methods in undergraduate engineering (or physics) courses.

I'm sensing a new High End Irrationalist meme developing.

maybe you are right. sometimes I just like to explore and play with opposite views.... new combinations. If you look at an opposite extream view from my own I can see more of eveything in between. And, then i also exagerate for effect. Its the story teller in me. Anyway - It isnt my fault because - I was raised that way (can I use that?)
.
I am leaving the door open a bit for entry for new info to come in which would make the pro-repro-duced music seem more like live, real sounds. Right now the systems do not sound like real musical instruments played in the home. far from it. but, then, a preamp isnt the worst offender in the chain.

[fas42]

What seems to be always ignored is that the performance of an ambitious audio system is constantly in flux -- anyone who has a high capability setup and sensitive hearing knows that the sound quality that he hears at any particular time varies for seemingly myriads of reasons; classic variables are the time of the day, and what electrical devices are operating in his home. The latter are due to the system not being 100% impervious to interference from the point of view of the capability of his hearing.

So any attempts to verify the performance of a system by sticking individual elements on a separate, nicely controlled test bench, and extracting a set of static measurements are always doomed to fail, certainly at the moment. Human hearing is just too sensitive, and the measurers don't try hard enough ...

Frank

[abraxalito]

Originally Posted by RNMarsh

So, Which is the 'real' view. the actual test or the viewing of the group as expressed by the individual viewers?

As a postmodernist I have no trouble answering that question - each person's perception is 'the real view'. Those who cling to the notion of 'objective truth' will have to rationalize on this one