Digital, but not by the numbers - Page 42 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Digital Line Level

Digital Line Level DACs, Digital Crossovers, Equalizers, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 27th April 2013, 04:29 AM   #411
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaetan8888 View Post
Hello

Any new developments on your 7th order filter ?

Thank

Bye

Gaetan
Abraxalito has continued this topic on another site where he posts under the name, opus111. The hyperlink follows below.

Digital that sounds like analog
__________________
Ken
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th April 2013, 08:42 AM   #412
marce is offline marce  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Blackburn, Lancs
Quote:
The thread got beseiged by trolls of objectivist persuasion (people who take measurements as primary guarantees of audio quality) and then when it was subequently cleaned up by a mod the overall balance had clearly shifted in favour of the trolls in that some trolling posts were left behind but my rebuttals to those were deleted. Hence I've decided to continue the saga in the more conducive environment over here at WBF
That is the opening spiel to the other thread, I have to strongly disagree with this statement, it was not trolls or trolling it was engineers presenting engineering based facts, that quite often go against the Audiophile fantasy world of design.
Marc
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th April 2013, 02:31 PM   #413
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Quote:
Originally Posted by marce View Post
That is the opening spiel to the other thread, I have to strongly disagree with this statement, it was not trolls or trolling it was engineers presenting engineering based facts, that quite often go against the Audiophile fantasy world of design.
Marc
I have to disagree a bit with your disagreement. Abraxalito is certainly capable of defending his own statements, however (and, without regards to any particular post or person in this thread), I must say that there are some around who fancy themselves a bit too much as what I call, knights-of-objectivism. They often don't just seek to educate others on the objective technology of audio, they go on to suppress the subjective perceptions expressed by others. If someone reports subjective observations which appear to conflict with some device's technical specification, those observations are too often dismissed out of hand as faulty. Such knights are, in effect, defenders of the realm of orthodoxy. Yes, of course, I agree that there is real physical science and engineering underpinning the creation and behavior and mechanical and electronic audio devices. It's just that some seem to lose sight that the science and technology are in service of and informed by human perception, not the reverse.

Most objectivists (I'm generalizing here) seem to take the attitude that, if you cannot produce or cite a technical analysis to support what you claim to hear then you, in fact, do not hear anything and are merely fooling yourself. Ridicule often follows. It seems to me that the proper attitude would be to treat what we perceive from out systems as an observation in search of an objective explanation, not the other way around. A touch of humility - the simple recognition that just possibly, one doesn't know everything there is to know - would not hurt here.

I suppose, that part of the problem is the witch doctoring and basic misinformation which does sometimes accompany the marketing of high end audio products. Even so, I feel that we must attempt to keep disciplined, yet open minds regarding questions of human music perception. After all, objectively, CD is pretty much as sold, perfect sound forever. Subjectively, however, that seems far from true for many. The analytical search should be for why there is that perception, not for the many ways CD's technical specs. necessarily prove that such perceptions amount to some kind of delusion, or neurosis, or dishonesty.
__________________
Ken

Last edited by Ken Newton; 27th April 2013 at 02:59 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th April 2013, 10:58 PM   #414
fas42 is online now fas42  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
fas42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NSW, Australia
Blog Entries: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Newton View Post
Most objectivists (I'm generalizing here) seem to take the attitude that, if you cannot produce or cite a technical analysis to support what you claim to hear then you, in fact, do not hear anything and are merely fooling yourself. Ridicule often follows. It seems to me that the proper attitude would be to treat what we perceive from out systems as an observation in search of an objective explanation, not the other way around. A touch of humility - the simple recognition that just possibly, one doesn't know everything there is to know - would not hurt here.
+1,000
__________________
Frank . . . the truth is, I just like a bit of ASMR ...
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th April 2013, 01:16 AM   #415
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Newton View Post
I have to disagree a bit with your disagreement. Abraxalito is certainly capable of defending his own statements, however (and, without regards to any particular post or person in this thread), I must say that there are some around who fancy themselves a bit too much as what I call, knights-of-objectivism. They often don't just seek to educate others on the objective technology of audio, they go on to suppress the subjective perceptions expressed by others. If someone reports subjective observations which appear to conflict with some device's technical specification, those observations are too often dismissed out of hand as faulty. Such knights are, in effect, defenders of the realm of orthodoxy. Yes, of course, I agree that there is real physical science and engineering underpinning the creation and behavior and mechanical and electronic audio devices. It's just that some seem to lose sight that the science and technology are in service of and informed by human perception, not the reverse.

Most objectivists (I'm generalizing here) seem to take the attitude that, if you cannot produce or cite a technical analysis to support what you claim to hear then you, in fact, do not hear anything and are merely fooling yourself. Ridicule often follows. It seems to me that the proper attitude would be to treat what we perceive from out systems as an observation in search of an objective explanation, not the other way around. A touch of humility - the simple recognition that just possibly, one doesn't know everything there is to know - would not hurt here.

I suppose, that part of the problem is the witch doctoring and basic misinformation which does sometimes accompany the marketing of high end audio products. Even so, I feel that we must attempt to keep disciplined, yet open minds regarding questions of human music perception. After all, objectively, CD is pretty much as sold, perfect sound forever. Subjectively, however, that seems far from true for many. The analytical search should be for why there is that perception, not for the many ways CD's technical specs. necessarily prove that such perceptions amount to some kind of delusion, or neurosis, or dishonesty.
How come the same dude thinks it's ok to do an active crossover using numbers and dsp's or does he just pick and choose based on some arbitrary decision which is not based on any rational explanation ?
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th April 2013, 02:11 AM   #416
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor White View Post
How come the same dude thinks it's ok to do an active crossover using numbers and dsp's or does he just pick and choose based on some arbitrary decision which is not based on any rational explanation ?
I won't assume to speak for him. Perhaps, he will happen by and comment.
__________________
Ken
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th April 2013, 06:49 AM   #417
Julf is offline Julf  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Newton View Post
Most objectivists (I'm generalizing here) seem to take the attitude that, if you cannot produce or cite a technical analysis to support what you claim to hear then you, in fact, do not hear anything and are merely fooling yourself.
No, I think most objectivists (and I am generalizing, too) claim that it is a *possibility* that your brain is fooling yourself (and I would not use the word "merely" there). That possibility should be taken into account.

Quote:
the simple recognition that just possibly, one doesn't know everything there is to know - would not hurt here.
Absolutely. But at the same time, it would not hurt for the subjectivists to acknowledge that the human brain is rather good at fooling itself, and that there really is no way to know if you are hearing what you think you are hearing without some objective references.

Quote:
Even so, I feel that we must attempt to keep disciplined, yet open minds regarding questions of human music perception.
Indeed. That works both ways.

Quote:
After all, objectively, CD is pretty much as sold, perfect sound forever. Subjectively, however, that seems far from true for many. The analytical search should be for why there is that perception, not for the many ways CD's technical specs. necessarily prove that such perceptions amount to some kind of delusion, or neurosis, or dishonesty.
I think modern research has shown that the perceptual issues are totally normal and results of the way the brain adapts to it's environment, and have nothing to do with delusions or dishonesty.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th April 2013, 07:23 AM   #418
fas42 is online now fas42  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
fas42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NSW, Australia
Blog Entries: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julf View Post
Absolutely. But at the same time, it would not hurt for the subjectivists to acknowledge that the human brain is rather good at fooling itself, and that there really is no way to know if you are hearing what you think you are hearing without some objective references.
Indeed it is, I've experienced this often. I was doing some experimenting with repairing compression artifacts on a track I barely knew, and at first it was easy, and obvious, to distinguish which was the original, and which the altered. But it steadily got harder to separate the two on continued listening -- what the hell was going on?? Then I realised, my brain was "learning" the music, the track; knew it better each time I listened, and was overriding what I heard "wrong" with one version vs. the other ...
__________________
Frank . . . the truth is, I just like a bit of ASMR ...
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th April 2013, 07:45 AM   #419
Julf is offline Julf  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by fas42 View Post
Indeed it is, I've experienced this often. I was doing some experimenting with repairing compression artifacts on a track I barely knew, and at first it was easy, and obvious, to distinguish which was the original, and which the altered. But it steadily got harder to separate the two on continued listening -- what the hell was going on?? Then I realised, my brain was "learning" the music, the track; knew it better each time I listened, and was overriding what I heard "wrong" with one version vs. the other ...
And I guess we have a lot of examples of spending a lot of time tweaking the setting of an adjusting knob to find the perfect setting - only to find out that the adjustment device wasn't plugged in. But we definitely heard a difference (probably described as "night and day" by an audiophile journalist ) between the settings...

In that situation, we could either "keep an open mind" and start looking for some equivalent of audiophile homeopathy, where the device affects the sound remotely by just being in the room, or we could admit that our expectations affected the way we heard things.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th April 2013, 08:41 AM   #420
marce is offline marce  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Blackburn, Lancs
Disagree, we were discussing digital and how to do that, sorry but you hear all folks is wrong.
Perceptions can be fooled, all the time....
But digital, well I'm sorry but if you do digital design and want to do it right you have to do it by the numbers, as with any electronics design, you have to use numbers physics and maths, to think otherwise is total ignorance of the design cycle. Now you'll all start waving you hands and shout at me, but it isn't gonna change the fact that electronic design is a NUMBERS based game, and digital more so than analogue design.
And before you shout and scream I am not dismissing listening tests from the design cycle, they are also an important part, but you still need to do the maths.
Funny, my response got exactly the reply I thought it would. If you read the thread you would realise we were discussing digital design and various points regarding such design to get the best results. As it did not fit the audiophile view of the world we were trolling, being dismissive etc, I do not agree, and have been party to many threads where we have discussed things from both sides of the equation to sometimes reach the same conclusion.
Of course all you subjective people often forget, and this may come as a surprise, that objectionist on this site probably listen to music....
Anyway bye bye for now.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tubes Numbers kmscouts Tubes / Valves 3 30th September 2012 04:19 AM
Confused by the numbers alexmoose Tubes / Valves 52 7th August 2006 03:06 AM
Still can't get reasonable numbers mashaffer Multi-Way 13 10th July 2006 04:55 PM
Where did these EL84 numbers come from? Sherman Tubes / Valves 2 13th June 2005 06:53 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:55 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2