John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
How to Calibrate Your Monitor | Digital Trends
The built-in calibration utilities and Web-based software are great for a quick fix, but they are inherently flawed by one thing – you. These calibration processes rely on an individual’s perception of color, and are therefore open to subjectivity based on how you see different colors. Purchasing a calibrating device is one way to bypass this dilemma and better ensure your monitor is calibrated to its true potential. You will need to invest some serious money if you’re looking for greater precision and control, but there are still some affordable alternatives that work well on a tight budget and will help obtain color consistency across all your monitors.

Monitor Calibration: Is Your Monitor Calibrated?

plenty more out there....
 
You are wrong wrong wrong, why do they do calibrators for monitors, why do they use them in studios etc.
Your eyes have automatic white balance built in, that is just one factor.
As I have said this is a fact look up monitor calibration, doing it by eye only sets it up for your vision, based on ambient light etc, calibration does what it sais it sets the display device up to a known standard, so it you go from one monitor to another the colours will be the same.
How do you know what the colour temperature is of the light you are using? you don't unless you measure it.
18% grey anyone...

You have to know that broad day sun light spectrum in not the same for different geographic position , there is small differences in sun light spectrum which determine that reference broad day light on different geographic position ,
on the other side each monitor calibrators are inside with fixed RGB value which determine that reference white light signal , but somewhere on this planet that fixed value of white will be OK for reference, but on the another geographic position will be NOT .
Calibrator white signal as reference is only partially good for me as for RTV mechanicus only when I must to adjust mutual RGB level for some TV or Monitor when is cloudy outside without of any sun light :).
 
I can't answer that question, as I have no knowledge whatsoever about either device.

If, as I suspect, those two devices are circuit components rather than audio system components then neither of them is 'hi-fi', any more than a resistor or a capacitor can be 'hi-fi'. If so, your question is even dafter than I thought.

In my book there is no daft question but daft answer.

DCB1 is the direct coupled version of B1 buffer by Nelson Pass. Salas introduced the DCB1 with very good shunt regulator.

OPA627, well, it is also as famous as OPA134. Famous because the specs is so good but some people do not like the sound.

Fortunately, the meaning of words does not depend on knowledge of particular human artifacts. You are putting the cart before the horse: first define 'hi-fi', then decide which devices meet the definition. I have told you my definition, which I believe matches that of other people - so it is not actually my definition but the definition.

Actually I have never been interested in the correct definition of "hi-fi". My objective has been to clear up whether I have been confusing enjoyment with hi-fi.

I started with supporting RNMarsh and Frank regarding ACCURACY and REALNESS, and I shared my view regarding ENJOYMENT. And then I think you commented and mentioned not to confuse enjoyment with hi-fi. But it is never clear how far I have confused enjoyment with hi-fi because of the strawman issue, or sidetracks... Luckily I was not asked to define enjoyment :D Because I will mention foot tapping :D:D
 
Just a note -- it happens to SS circuitry as well. I had read about amps sounding 'dark' but never hear one that way until I was sent a Spectral prototype power amp to critic. It was actually describable as 'dark' !!
I did some measurements that they had not done and found it wanting... they fixed it.
What was the problem, and what were the measurements that you did that they did not ?.

A combination of listening and testing gives the best outcome most consistently.
Yes, of course.

Dan.
 
Curious, how do you determine the original sound field for electronic music?

In this context - assuming that we are talking about an recorded, distributed and reproduced event - the original sound field is, what have been heard during the final production process (i.e. mastering)

That would clearly be sufficient, but it is not clear that it is necessary. Fortunately our ears/brain seem to be quite good at coping with a different acoustical environment, provided that most of the original Fourier components are present (i.e. sufficiently high bandwidth) and not too many new ones are introduced (i.e. sufficiently low nonlinear distortion), plus avoidance of pathological issues such as a 2 second differential time delay between sub-1kHz and super-1kHz frequencies.

Yes, obviously "quite good at" is a good description, but means actually that it depends on the listener.
Even at the beginning of stereophonic reproduction the experimentators already knew that for example the perception of depth depends on the experience of listeners (Steinber/Snow, Auditory Perspective - Physical Factors, 1933)

Another example is the small group of humans who are unable to percept a frontal sagital plane (phantom) sound source although both loudspeakers are reproducing identical signals.
Ironically this group is the only one that percepts the physical reality.

Given the fact that we are talking perceptionwise about normal distributions for single and combined parameters it is not easy to decide which listener is looking for "true high fidelity" .
 
No it isn't an argument between people who believe everything can be measured, it is a fact about calibrating a monitor, like you would calibrate any equipment.
20 years ago maybe, now you can use a dedicated calibration tool, many top monitors come with them built in, this is fact not opinion regarding calibration and those that insist that eyes are the tool to use have it wrong. This illustrates to some extent (deliberately so) the problems we have in these discussions, the total refusal by some to believe their senses can fool them.
A calibrator measures the colours displayed and sets the monitor up to display these colours correctly...WHY do both professionals and amateurs doing any work with colour do this, its not a myth or an argument is a fact....
This is the emperors clothes syndrome coming out, you calibrate scopes, multi-meters etc why would you not calibrate a monitor correctly!
Even many years ago I used a calibration device. This is about fidelity not personal preference.
Sy was referring to the UK as 3rd world...
Gee, marce, no need to get so hot under the collar about it all - I appreciate that if you're doing it for a living, and a client has to kept happy, then it makes sense to use the standard tools - that way you always have a scapegoat!

But I'm just talking about a set for private use, that makes me satisfied as regards the colour correctness. If I used one of your devices to set the box, and I was still not happy with the balance then I would immediately override them - the fidelity ultimately has to strike the right chord in my head. Remember earlier I said that the sense of realness was more important to me than accuracy - I'm the one who lives with the presentation, day after day, and I want to be comfortable with it.

If the senses fool everyone, always, there are no absolutes - every presentation device should be easily adjustable so the subjective result is the most satisfactory for the individual.
 
You have to know that broad day sun light spectrum in not the same for different geographic position , there is small differences in sun light spectrum which determine that reference broad day light on different geographic position ,
on the other side each monitor calibrators are inside with fixed RGB value which determine that reference white light signal , but somewhere on this planet that fixed value of white will be OK for reference, but on the another geographic position will be NOT .
Calibrator white signal as reference is only partially good for me as for RTV mechanicus only when I must to adjust mutual RGB level for some TV or Monitor when is cloudy outside without of any sun light :).

What a load of tosh......
For a start off monitors are transmissive not reflective.
Hence 18% grey which is a better colour to set white balance.....
White is white.....
 
Last edited:
Gee, marce, no need to get so hot under the collar about it all - I appreciate that if you're doing it for a living, and a client has to kept happy, then it makes sense to use the standard tools - that way you always have a scapegoat!

But I'm just talking about a set for private use, that makes me satisfied as regards the colour correctness. If I used one of your devices to set the box, and I was still not happy with the balance then I would immediately override them - the fidelity ultimately has to strike the right chord in my head. Remember earlier I said that the sense of realness was more important to me than accuracy - I'm the one who lives with the presentation, day after day, and I want to be comfortable with it.

If the senses fool everyone, always, there are no absolutes - every presentation device should be easily adjustable so the subjective result is the most satisfactory for the individual.


The same applies to sound, fidelity accuracy. The whole point is to display colours realistically (same with sound)...
So you don't want accuracy is what you are saying, I do in both visual and with sound systems. What applies to the eyes also applies to the hearing. Sy's earlier link is an excellent example of perception playing with our grasp of reality.
Question answered, thanks.
 
The reduction of sensitivity to small differences with increasing time between presentations. Or were the goalposts moved again without explicitly saying so?

The "goalpost" in our cntext was, if there exist any hard experimental data that links the memory time span to the size of a difference, or that links the ability to transfer a representation of this difference to the long term memory to the size of a difference.

I mean, that humans are not perfect and that memory is not perfect in general is not the topic of our discussion, is it?

J<snip>

A combination of listening and testing gives the best outcome most consistently.


THx-RNMarsh

That can´t be emphasized enough. :)
 
The same applies to sound, fidelity accuracy.

Today somebody posted in "The best sounding amplifier I have ever heard" thread (Goldmund Mimesis thread) saying that the best amp he has ever heard is an amp from YBA. So I browsed and found the website (ybahifi.com).

Interesting to see statement such as: "The pleasure found in listening, should be our only guide". I believe that he didn't mean to say that measurement is not important...
 

Attachments

  • YBAhifi.png
    YBAhifi.png
    108 KB · Views: 143
The same applies to sound, fidelity accuracy. The whole point is to display colours realistically (same with sound)...
So you don't want accuracy is what you are saying, I do in both visual and with sound systems. What applies to the eyes also applies to the hearing. Sy's earlier link is an excellent example of perception playing with our grasp of reality.
Question answered, thanks.
Ahhh, you fell into the trap - consider the video presentation device to be faulty, and you go through the whole calibration process, by the book - and the picture still looks wrong! Why, because the processing circuitry is misbehaving - and when operating dynamically, with normal video material, it stuffs up the picture, just enough to really irritate you. That's how I view most audio playback - then you can either "calibrate" to minimise the impact of the faultiness, or attempt to fix the bad behaviour ... the latter is what I do.
 
When it comes to this stuff, I am more likely to believe professionals in that field than arm chair theorists who believe they are qualified to unravel the mysteries of the human mind because they can solder a resistor.

I am fine with believes as long as they are expressed as such.
But believes don´t really fit in the scientific framework.

I mentioned the carver test - the GEB claimed they could pick out one amplifier from another. Bob Carver proved they could not even in an uncontrolled tests. So, under controlled tests most subjects fail, and when we have an uncontrolled test but with a basic level of 'no peaking allowed' they also fail . . .

The origin of the challenge (according to Holt) was Bob Carver´s claim that he would be able to duplicate the sound of every other amplifier with one of his own as long as both are used within their limits.
The stereophile crew accepted the challenge, provided a reference amplifier
and did the listening tests.
As far as i understand the description the stereophile listeners did the evaluation in the same way they normally did during reviews.
The Carver Challenge | Stereophile.com
 
Member
Joined 2014
Paid Member
Ahhh, you fell into the trap - consider the video presentation device to be faulty, and you go through the whole calibration process, by the book - and the picture still looks wrong! Why, because the processing circuitry is misbehaving - and when operating dynamically, with normal video material, it stuffs up the picture, just enough to really irritate you. That's how I view most audio playback - then you can either "calibrate" to minimise the impact of the faultiness, or attempt to fix the bad behaviour ... the latter is what I do.

If the device was faulty, the calibration would show that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.