It is called expectation bias.
Guess you never have been on German roads
...Best regards!
Of course, same here ... but we are talking audio amplifier devices here, so what´s your point?
It does not belong in this discussion.
I am answering to:
which clearly implies audio signals and listening.
You mean comparators are audio devices meant to be listened at by themselves?
I know you refer to placebo.......
Usualy I do not here any diference between amplifiers (good amplifiers) unlike others, but with these 2 amplifiers the diference even if verry subtle was clearly defined.
The cymbal has a slower decay time, the sound last longer - only one example.
And I made blind tests too.
Usualy I do not here any diference between amplifiers (good amplifiers) unlike others, but with these 2 amplifiers the diference even if verry subtle was clearly defined.
The cymbal has a slower decay time, the sound last longer - only one example.
And I made blind tests too.
Of course, same here ... but we are talking audio amplifier devices here, so what´s your point?
It does not belong in this discussion.
I am answering to:
which clearly implies audio signals and listening.
You mean comparators are audio devices meant to be listened at by themselves?
OK, OK, I was just sort of joking. Sorry.
Jan
I doubt if decay time has anything to do with slew rate. The end of a decay is at lower amplitude so less affected by slew rate limiting.
Assuming very careful matching of volume levels (often omitted, which renders any listening test void) the main difference between two competent amps will be frequency response. This is probably what you heard.
So you compared two amps under unknown conditions. You prefer one. This happens to have a higher slew rate. Nothing much can be deduced from this.
Assuming very careful matching of volume levels (often omitted, which renders any listening test void) the main difference between two competent amps will be frequency response. This is probably what you heard.
So you compared two amps under unknown conditions. You prefer one. This happens to have a higher slew rate. Nothing much can be deduced from this.
Like I allready writed here
" It is to complicated to explain and others will not be agree with me. "
BUT was not only one test and not only 2 amplifiers compared ....... so let's just continue only on this direction: because I like milkcofee and you like blackcofee, or just because.........
I did not try to convince anyone that the big SR is better, I only expressed my personal preferences, therefore why are you trying to change the mening of the discussion? Why are you trying to change me feelings?
" It is to complicated to explain and others will not be agree with me. "
BUT was not only one test and not only 2 amplifiers compared ....... so let's just continue only on this direction: because I like milkcofee and you like blackcofee, or just because.........
I did not try to convince anyone that the big SR is better, I only expressed my personal preferences, therefore why are you trying to change the mening of the discussion? Why are you trying to change me feelings?
That seems to imply that the inverse low pass filter (and hence also the low pass filter itself) is just a frequency dependent time machine. Cool, now I know how to time travel!
NO, was a relatively inexpensive amplifier not one smeared with snake oil.
I really enjoy making jokes to those who prefer snake oil to audio equipment.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.