Requesting help from Dr. Geddes, or other experts

[Pallas]

Originally Posted by Key

I really don't have to validate any of my opinions sorry.

In other words, you claim audible artifacts but can't actually point to any music that makes them show up. Which means more likely than not you can't actually hear the things you claim to be able to hear. Typical audiophile. Next are you going to go off on how magic tubes and expensive wires are?

Originally Posted by Key

Some versions of DPLII are better than others as well. Maybe Fosgate's tube version is the "real" version of DPLII.

I win. (See paragraph above.)

And "versions?" It's a goddamn piece of computer code.

[gedlee]

Originally Posted by Key

I really don't have to validate any of my opinions

I've found this to be the case in many of my discussions with you. It makes having a discussion pointless because the statement above makes your comments uncredible.

[Key]

Well I am not trying to invalidate your opinions. And I don't see where I am saying that your opinions are wrong in any of these threads. Truth be told with a lot of these things we are talking about I am actually thinking that more than one person is "right" in there opinion. Maybe if you give me a specific. I am really not trying to come off as some know it all I just have personal preferences and opinions on certain things.

And Pallas you might want to read up a little on how DPLII was invented. Fosgate made the prototype all tube based. It was then up to the engineers at Dolby to port his analog invention to DSP. Further more if you are intimately familiar with linear phase shift networks or basically any means to achieve a linear 90 degree phase shift then you will see that no two are alike and not one of them is perfect. Therefore each computer code will most likely have deviations in it depending on how they implement it. You lose.

[gedlee]

It wasn't in this thread, but another. You were very quick to write-off some data that I had referenced (my own I might add) by simply disagreeing because that was not your opinon. Holding an opinion based on no data (which you stated you will do) which lies in direct contradiction to existing data is not very intelligent. You cann't support your position by simply claiming that "I don't believe everything that I read". That may be true in many cases, but not when what you should have read is solidly substantiated with science.

Its a big problem in these forums that people hold opions with no supporting evidence that clearly contradict the available evidence - thats called religion and it has no place in audio.

[Key]

Are you talking about asymmetrical phase distortions?! I gave you a couple of chances to double check that. I also double triple, quadruple tested myself in the mean time. You really think I am wrong? I think I am 100% right about the subject and I REALLY didn't want to call you on it. I stopped myself and sort of gave you examples before I decided to give my own lighthearted examples where I double and triple checked that I wasn't making some sort of mistake. I would have appreciated if you took a listen and maybe just told me where my mistake was if you saw one. But I was left in the dark. I still think I am right and I have posted proof of it which you can easily repeat yourself. I think I was a little offended by the "wasting your time" comment and your assumption that I haven't read any papers on the audibility of phase changes. It was simply that I did not know how FAR you could push the concept.

[gedlee]

Originally Posted by Key

Are you talking about asymmetrical phase distortions?! I gave you a couple of chances to double check that. I also double triple, quadruple tested myself in the mean time. You really think I am wrong? I think I am 100% right about the subject and I REALLY didn't want to call you on it. I stopped myself and sort of gave you examples before I decided to give my own lighthearted examples where I double and triple checked that I wasn't making some sort of mistake. I would have appreciated if you took a listen and maybe just told me where my mistake was if you saw one. But I was left in the dark. I still think I am right and I have posted proof of it which you can easily repeat yourself. I think I was a little offended by the "wasting your time" comment and your assumption that I haven't read any papers on the audibility of phase changes. It was simply that I did not know how FAR you could push the concept.

I'll be honest with you I did not follow it closely, but I will say this: there are a multitude of ways to screw this kind of test up, not that you have, but one has to consider the possibilities and "prove" the validity of what they are doing. Then, if you did find that this was an audible issue, then it would contradict a whole array of other similar tests that have shown the opposite and where proven to be valid tests. So if your results ARE correct, then noone is going to accept them until you do the same level of care and trials as were doen for the contrdictory results. And that hasn't happened.

So I don't even know what it is you are claiming, but I know that your methodology is so weak that I'm not about to reject my results and accept yours.

By "waste your time" I menat just what I said above. No one but you is going to accept the test as you have performed it.

Before I would ever "listen" to anything I'd have to see the math behind it and then check that the examples implimented precisely what was being claimed - AND NOTHING MORE! Otherwise I could be listening to something completely unrelated to what was claimed and coming to a completely false set of conclusions.

People simply do not seem to understand that poor testing methods are not "better than nothing" - very often they are "worse than doing nothing" because they give you false data.

[markus76]

Amen.

[Key]

All I got from you was basically that you do real tests and your opinions are therefore objective. You say I stick my head in the sand in light of objective proof (can cut the hypocrisy with a knife) yet you didn't even bother to take a listen to my examples. I have read paper after paper on the subject so I think your assumptions about how I spend my time were uncalled for frankly.

Would you call a polarity inversion an "all pass filter"? Would you listen to your speakers with mix match polarity? Seems kind of obvious to me I am objectively correct or either we are talking about two completely different things.

Further more would you actually argue that by altering the phase relationships of the speakers you are not altering the arrival times at the ears of the listener? Seems like you are to me. And do you really think I need a controlled test with subjects to prove to myself such an elementary truth in psychoacoustics. God if I had to work like that I would never get anything done.

[Key]

http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/pa...---Kunchur.pdf
Some reading since you seem to respect that more than my "real world" examples.

[markus76]

Now we know that listening to a 7 kHz square waveform makes very small time errors detectable. That study hardly allows any conclusions to be draw for music reproduction. Most psychoacoustic studies share the same fate.

Best, Markus