Testing or Listening? :|: Split from Blowtorch II - Page 8 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > General Interest > Everything Else

Everything Else Anything related to audio / video / electronics etc) BUT remember- we have many new forums where your thread may now fit! .... Parts, Equipment & Tools, Construction Tips, Software Tools......

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 13th March 2011, 04:02 AM   #71
jkeny is offline jkeny  Ireland
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dublin
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitsware View Post
That's why my favorite bands are the ones
that sound just like their records ..... )
(rather than the other way around)
Ah, so you have A/B/X them in a blind test without peaking, have you? Otherwise, it's purely anecdotal evidence, proves nothing & isn't worth a damn (according to some here!)

Last edited by jkeny; 13th March 2011 at 04:17 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2011, 10:11 AM   #72
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
Lots of interesting posts on perception! I agree fully that the perception that is experienced is a construct of the mind, using bits and parts from many sensory inputs as well as past and (expected) future ones.
One thing I'm not seeing/reading which I think is important.

It is worthwhile to remember that even, say, identical music played by identical amps over identical speakers, to the same person, may give different perceptions in different circumstances and at different times.
Because the inputs to the brain construction process may all be different even if that one input, the air vibrations on your ears, are identical.

jan didden
__________________
If you don't change your beliefs, your life will be like this forever. Is that good news? - W. S. Maugham
Check out Linear Audio!
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2011, 10:15 AM   #73
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 109
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post
I'll go ahead and put you in the "not a serious designer" column.
An entirely reasonable categorization If 'not a serious designer' means opposite to 'po-faced designer' then count me in, for sure. Po-faced designers are quite a bit less creative than their more playful counterparts.
__________________
Seek not the favour of the multitude...rather the testimony of few. And number not voices, but weigh them. - Kant
The capacity for impartial observation is commonly called 'cynicism' by those who lack it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2011, 07:39 PM   #74
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
I was just reading in the BT II thread about that Stereophile article comparing 4 different phono preamps. Maybe better to comment Here than There?

The way they did it was recording a musical section played through each of the DUTs to a CD-R and then listening to the differences between the tracks.

Then I thought, wait a minute! Is Stereophile now endorsing CD-R replay as having such good resolution, resolving power, detail, realism etc that it can be used to hear the suble differences between phono preamps replaying vinyl??
Or should I not take Stereophile too seriously on this?

jan didden
__________________
If you don't change your beliefs, your life will be like this forever. Is that good news? - W. S. Maugham
Check out Linear Audio!
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th March 2011, 12:59 AM   #75
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 109
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
I agree its such a complete break with the established methodology used in Stereophile - I went back to check the date, which is March and not as seemed possible, April. Why CD-R of all things when a recording could have been done at 96 or even 192kHz? And given the outputs were in digital form, there's no excuse at all for omitting measurements of frequency response and distortion. Also did the Peak LE5 program do the downconversion to 44k1? If so, what are its characteristics (dither, filter response). JC seems so convinced of the necessity for beyond 20kHz response and he's content to see his baby reviewed through an unknown brickwall filter?
__________________
Seek not the favour of the multitude...rather the testimony of few. And number not voices, but weigh them. - Kant
The capacity for impartial observation is commonly called 'cynicism' by those who lack it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2011, 03:06 PM   #76
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
"Science is not as collection of facts, any more than opera is a collection of notes. It's a process, a way of thinking, a method based on a single insight - that the degree to which an idea seems true has nothing to do with wheter it is true, and that the way to distinguish factual ideas from false ones is to test them by experiment"

Timothy Ferris, "Not Rocket Science", The new Yorker (July 20, 1998, p5).

Underline and italics mine.

We seem often to confuse the question as to whether something is true or not, with the question of whether something can be enjoyed or not or preferred or not. I am sure my audio system has many flaws, some of which I am aware, probably some I am not even aware. Yet I greatly enjoy it. That's one side of reality.

Then there the other side of the reality, for instance whether a change in a certain component makes the amplifier more or less transparent. That is a factual question that needs experimental tests to find out which it is.
There are several ways to design such a test. For instance, you can do a battery of measurements that are related to how transparent the signal goes through the amp. Or you can design some controlled subjective listening tests to find out if there is an audible difference in transparency.

Whatever you do, remember that: to establish a fact needs experimental verification, and that is completely independent of whether you can enjoy your equipment, have preference for this or that speaker, that sort of thing.
Two different things.

So, it's pretty nonsensical if someone says: I prefer speaker X over speaker Y, and someone else says: but that's impossible because X has a frequency response that is less flat than speaker Y. Apples and oranges.
Also pretty nonsensical if someone says: amplifier X has less THD than amplifier Y, and someone else says: can't be because I prefer the sound of amp Y. Pears and olives.

jan didden
__________________
If you don't change your beliefs, your life will be like this forever. Is that good news? - W. S. Maugham
Check out Linear Audio!
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2011, 06:09 PM   #77
jkeny is offline jkeny  Ireland
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dublin
Quote:
Originally Posted by janneman View Post
[.....]
Then there the other side of the reality, for instance whether a change in a certain component makes the amplifier more or less transparent. That is a factual question that needs experimental tests to find out which it is.[.....]
jan didden
And what does transparent mean?
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th March 2011, 10:04 AM   #78
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkeny View Post
And what does transparent mean?
Well I use the term in what I believe is the most original one, namely that what goes in comes out unaltered (except for level of course).
So transparent for me means that nothing gets added to, nothing gets taken out of, the sinal.
I realize in Real World that's not 100% possible but in designing an audio component we should try to get as close as possible.

{I do realize that some designers purposefully manipulate the signal like adding some extra bass because it sells better but that's no concern for me as a designer}.

jan
__________________
If you don't change your beliefs, your life will be like this forever. Is that good news? - W. S. Maugham
Check out Linear Audio!
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th March 2011, 01:59 PM   #79
jkeny is offline jkeny  Ireland
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dublin
But it's kind of a tautology, isn't it? How do we know what goes in, except by measuring it. How do we measure what goes in except by playing it through some device? So which device are we measuring the one that measures it or the one that plays it back?

It's a bit like Stereophile using pieces recorded to CDR to listen to the replay from different DUTs - what's being listened to here the original sound, the CDR recording device, the CDR media, the CDR replay chain, etc?

Last edited by jkeny; 27th March 2011 at 02:06 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th March 2011, 04:57 PM   #80
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkeny View Post
But it's kind of a tautology, isn't it? How do we know what goes in, except by measuring it. How do we measure what goes in except by playing it through some device? So which device are we measuring the one that measures it or the one that plays it back?

It's a bit like Stereophile using pieces recorded to CDR to listen to the replay from different DUTs - what's being listened to here the original sound, the CDR recording device, the CDR media, the CDR replay chain, etc?
I don't know of any other way for testing for transparency than testing for difference between input and output. I don't think you can do that by listening, as far as I know.

There's basically two problems in transparency testing:
- How do you measure under circumstances that are close enough to actual use with music to be relevant for music reproduction?
- What parameters do you measure that let you judge transparency?

I believe the first one has been solved. For instance, my AP can test equipment linearity with a signal composed of a spectrum of 31 (or more) different frequencies; and then by cleverly spacing these frequencies, test for the individual harmonics per frequency and all the myriad intermodulation results of all the frequencies. It is possible to set the individual levels such that it exercises the amp much heavier than any musical signal ever would, so I believe this is a relevant test and test signal.

I'm not sure about the second issue because it involved settling the question what levels of 'non-transparency' can safely be assumed to be non-audible.

One exciting solution to both questions is Bill Waslo's AudioDiffmaker that lets you compare actual music signal segments difference between input and output and is VERY sensitive. For instance, he demostrated two musical signal excerps that differed such that one had a complete Sousa-band 'buried' in the signal at -60dB IIRC. Most people (as far as I know, all so far who tried) cannot even tell in which signal the Sousa band is. Yet if you listen to the difference signal you just hear that Sousa-band clearly.

So I believe we're getting there, even if we're not there yet.

jan
__________________
If you don't change your beliefs, your life will be like this forever. Is that good news? - W. S. Maugham
Check out Linear Audio!
  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
Naim (split from Blowtorch) snoopy Solid State 213 3rd July 2009 06:07 AM
Testing vs listening cathode_ray Multi-Way 89 27th September 2008 03:16 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:19 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