Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

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 21st July 2010, 07:17 PM   #5011
diyAudio Member
 
jacco vermeulen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: At the sea front, Rotterdam or Curaçao
Send a message via Yahoo to jacco vermeulen
Quote:
Originally Posted by bear View Post
1. Some have lost a significant part of their hearing as the result of being over-exposed to amplified music.
2. Most musicians who have significant training "hear" the music in their heads - not in the "air".
D-right, meet my half Polish cousin, deaf as a bat after 30y in the business and still at it.
=> YouTube - Brainbox - Down Man
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2010, 07:25 PM   #5012
expert in tautology
diyAudio Member
 
bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: New York State USA
Jan,

I do not know the details (and by the details I mean more than a description and picture of the room) of this flunked test by some person of "standing".

This is exactly my point. Not knowing enough of the empirically determinable details puts this test or ANY test into question.

Surely, you can not suggest that (to exaggerate for clarity) a DBT performed with a mid-fi receiver and run-of-the-mill 3-way speaker as the central components will be likely to yield useful information as to something like two high-end DACs?? (assuming no gross flaws in either one?) Clearly, the specifics of the test conditions is crucial, not casual.

What some other person said or did not say is a red herring in this case. He might be right, he might be wrong. He's got an hypothetical construct, that's all. And, of course a belief.

What i am saying is that a DBT is fine as a tool, but it is only as good as the test conditions permit - and the test subjects. If the test conditions are not sufficiently well documented and tested then it is merely a statistical reflection of a specific test condition and circumstance and MAY OR MAY NOT be generalizable to ALL cases...

Let's recall we are not talking about what is "good enough for the average person" we are talking about what is possible to achieve at the limits of the current technology!

_-_-bear
__________________
_-_-bear
http://www.bearlabs.com -- Btw, I don't actually know anything, FYI -- [...2SJ74 Toshiba bogus asian parts - beware! ]
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2010, 07:28 PM   #5013
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
I'll ask you the same question that John has repeatedly avoided: what special insight do you get into the sound quality of electronics/wire/whatever by peeking at the nameplate?
__________________
"The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous."- H. L. Mencken
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2010, 07:29 PM   #5014
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by bear View Post

There are two main problems with "professional musicians" and sound.

1. Some have lost a significant part of their hearing as the result of being over-exposed to amplified music.

2. Most musicians who have significant training "hear" the music in their heads - not in the "air". This is especially true of those who can sight read music... it is a problem in some situations.
So you'll also tag Rod's anecdote as worthless?
__________________
"The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous."- H. L. Mencken
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2010, 07:32 PM   #5015
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by bear View Post
Jan,

I do not know the details (and by the details I mean more than a description and picture of the room) of this flunked test by some person of "standing".

This is exactly my point. Not knowing enough of the empirically determinable details puts this test or ANY test into question.

Surely, you can not suggest that (to exaggerate for clarity) a DBT performed with a mid-fi receiver and run-of-the-mill 3-way speaker as the central components will be likely to yield useful information as to something like two high-end DACs?? (assuming no gross flaws in either one?) Clearly, the specifics of the test conditions is crucial, not casual.

What some other person said or did not say is a red herring in this case. He might be right, he might be wrong. He's got an hypothetical construct, that's all. And, of course a belief.

What i am saying is that a DBT is fine as a tool, but it is only as good as the test conditions permit - and the test subjects. If the test conditions are not sufficiently well documented and tested then it is merely a statistical reflection of a specific test condition and circumstance and MAY OR MAY NOT be generalizable to ALL cases...

Let's recall we are not talking about what is "good enough for the average person" we are talking about what is possible to achieve at the limits of the current technology!

_-_-bear
Well you could read up on the test about the conditions, equipment, the pre-testing, the checks and balances, it's all there, well documented. I don't want to become personal, really not, but the fact that you personally don't know the details is because you didn't look them up. That's hardly something you can blame the test or the testers for.

Of course that casual test we did in our homes with our equipment is totally in the dark, so trusting that is equivalent to buying a used car after a phone call to a used car salesman .

jd
__________________
Never explain - your friends don't need it and your enemies won't believe you anyway - E. Hubbart
Check out Linear Audio Vol 7
!
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2010, 09:42 PM   #5016
expert in tautology
diyAudio Member
 
bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: New York State USA
Jan,

Please feel free to send me via email or link the best documented "DBT" you have? I'd be quite pleased to correct my comment in your favor, if it is warranted. I said I have yet to read one that I found to be even marginally well documented. So, if I have not seen it, why not just send it along?

SY, c'mon... I never said anything about "peeking at the nameplate"!! Your reading comprehension is off - that is the opposite of what I said. I'd expect far more detailed and comprehensive empirical and scientific measurements and tests.

As far as what Rod said, I dunno... don't think I made a direct value judgement on what he said rather I commented on the overall issue...

_-_-bear
__________________
_-_-bear
http://www.bearlabs.com -- Btw, I don't actually know anything, FYI -- [...2SJ74 Toshiba bogus asian parts - beware! ]
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2010, 10:30 PM   #5017
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
I do not look at nameplates. I just keep track of the components under test. I don't have to be told 'which is which'. I just need to know that this is L and this is M for example, or D and H. This nameplate thing is a 'slander' to compromise my experience, in making intelligent and correct audio decisions.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2010, 11:17 PM   #5018
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: 84
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 simon7000 View Post
In a linear network for a perfect step you get 100% of the settling on final value in 100% of the time allowed. An RC network settles to 63.7% of the value in one time constant (R*C = 1 time constant). It then settles to 63.7% of the remainder in the next time constant. (76.9% of final value) Of course it will never actually reach the final value, so custom is to allow 5 or 7 time constants. Since you want fast settling higher order filters are use.
Its obscure to me that higher order filters necessarily provide faster settling. As far as I can see, the settling time isn't so much a function of the filter order as the Q - a higher order bessel filter will settle quicker than a somewhat lower order elliptic for example.

Quote:
So if your timing accuracy is really bad say 1% then a linear system will have a 1% level error, the inverse exponent system having dropped faster at first will have less error. With zero timing error the linear system should have no error and the inverse exponent must have some.
I don't consider a level error (linear) of 1% to be particularly worrisome. Do you? The faster the settling, the smaller this level error. 5 time constants will give an error -43dB down.

Quote:
So if all your steps are single bit both methods are nice, but when you do a step of 1/2 full scale linear should still be zero error and inverse exponent will have the single bit remainder multiplied by the step size.
Sorry, I'm not following here. Both methods?
__________________
The great audio capacitor myth : 'There's such a thing as too many PSU caps'.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2010, 12:04 AM   #5019
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by bear View Post
Jan,

Please feel free to send me via email or link the best documented "DBT" you have? I'd be quite pleased to correct my comment in your favor, if it is warranted. I said I have yet to read one that I found to be even marginally well documented. So, if I have not seen it, why not just send it along?

SY, c'mon... I never said anything about "peeking at the nameplate"!! Your reading comprehension is off - that is the opposite of what I said. I'd expect far more detailed and comprehensive empirical and scientific measurements and tests.

As far as what Rod said, I dunno... don't think I made a direct value judgement on what he said rather I commented on the overall issue...

_-_-bear
I don't particularly keep track of all tests I see, but the one I brought up before is here:

Boston Audio Society - ABX Testing article

There's an interesting one on speaker relative ranking blind vs sighted by Floyd Toole here:

http://www.harmanaudio.com/pv_obj_ca...rt_science.pdf

(the whole paper is a good read but the blind/sighted part is at this chapter "BLIND vs. SIGHTED TESTS – SEEING IS BELIEVING")

Now I am sure you can and will find flaw with either of those papers, but remember: even a serious attempt at documenting and controlling tests runs rings around the usual sighted, casual anecdotal 'tests'.

jd
__________________
Never explain - your friends don't need it and your enemies won't believe you anyway - E. Hubbart
Check out Linear Audio Vol 7
!
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2010, 12:09 AM   #5020
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
Why should they be considered 'superior' IF they usually do not reflect what people hear consistently on their own. Perhaps it is the ABX test that is at fault. I think that is so.
  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



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:01 PM.


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