Tempco in resistors is (relatively) unimportant in box of gain circuits (as opposed to timing or precision DC circuits), unless it's so great that operating points drift; that's just bad design. The idea of some sort of thermal modulation of signal lacks experimental support (AFAIK) and makes little sense when considering thermal mass and time constants.
If you've got experimental data on thermal modulation of real-world resistors by signals which contradicts this, don't hold back.
If you've got experimental data on thermal modulation of real-world resistors by signals which contradicts this, don't hold back.
say what?
Gee, I thought I was trying to discuss things from an engineering perspective. The reputation and experience of some of said audio experts seems to be a major point, but no one seems to want to talk about engineers (not myself) with sterling credentials who still listen. Are Erno Borbely, John Curl and Nelson Pass just delusional audiophile hacks. I would think the patents, commercial successes, and over 25 years a piece might have some credibility. I guess it is MUCH easier to take pot shots at me. You and a few others have been remarkably silent about your background. We don't even know your names. The discussions of the physics and electronic effects behind the subject at hand seems to be absent from most of these post as well.
Gee, I thought I was trying to discuss things from an engineering perspective. The reputation and experience of some of said audio experts seems to be a major point, but no one seems to want to talk about engineers (not myself) with sterling credentials who still listen. Are Erno Borbely, John Curl and Nelson Pass just delusional audiophile hacks. I would think the patents, commercial successes, and over 25 years a piece might have some credibility. I guess it is MUCH easier to take pot shots at me. You and a few others have been remarkably silent about your background. We don't even know your names. The discussions of the physics and electronic effects behind the subject at hand seems to be absent from most of these post as well.
The inverting and the non inverting...
In the noninverting configuration the voltage of the base of the LTP transistor conected to the input is compared with the voltage of the base of the LTP transitor conected to the feedback resistor...so the substraction is not direct...if any diference existe in the BE voltages of the 2 transistores ...the feedback can't do nothing to correct this...
In the inverting configuration...the input resistor curent and the output resistor current nulled in the - input of the amp...so the feedback become only dependent of this resistors...and there are no active elements in the process!
I hope i make myself clear....
If it was in Portuguese!!!
In the noninverting configuration the voltage of the base of the LTP transistor conected to the input is compared with the voltage of the base of the LTP transitor conected to the feedback resistor...so the substraction is not direct...if any diference existe in the BE voltages of the 2 transistores ...the feedback can't do nothing to correct this...
In the inverting configuration...the input resistor curent and the output resistor current nulled in the - input of the amp...so the feedback become only dependent of this resistors...and there are no active elements in the process!
I hope i make myself clear....
If it was in Portuguese!!!
Re: Steve is right, IMO
When Sony & Philips were 1st introducing the CD i was taking a math course on Fourier Analysis -- discussions on this subject lead me to my conclusions of the inherent flaws (too low a sampling frequency) of CDs, and how far you could realistically apply FFT to audio signals...
This Conversation with Mr. Fourier is a pretty good summary.
dave
traderbam said:
When Sony & Philips were 1st introducing the CD i was taking a math course on Fourier Analysis -- discussions on this subject lead me to my conclusions of the inherent flaws (too low a sampling frequency) of CDs, and how far you could realistically apply FFT to audio signals...
This Conversation with Mr. Fourier is a pretty good summary.
dave
Re: say what?
Um, Fred, I've specifically taked about physics and electronic effects. And methods of sensory research. A few minutes getting personal info off my (non-audio related) web site and googling me (or running a search at USPTO with my name) will give you all the info on my background you want.
Fred Dieckmann said:
Um, Fred, I've specifically taked about physics and electronic effects. And methods of sensory research. A few minutes getting personal info off my (non-audio related) web site and googling me (or running a search at USPTO with my name) will give you all the info on my background you want.
Re: say what?
Credibility in terms of what exactly?
I don't see where patents or commercial success play any particular role in the area of credibility. You can patent perpetual motion machines and Eminem is a commercial success. So what?
The truth doesn't stand or fall based on patents or credentials. The truth either is or it isn't.
se
Fred Dieckmann said:
Credibility in terms of what exactly?
I don't see where patents or commercial success play any particular role in the area of credibility. You can patent perpetual motion machines and Eminem is a commercial success. So what?
The truth doesn't stand or fall based on patents or credentials. The truth either is or it isn't.
se
Re: Re: say what?
Again, at the risk of being obvious, the issues at hand here are the validity of:
1 - Blind Listening Tests (as compared to non-blind listening)
2 - Null Difference Testing of amplifiers (that is subtracting the input from the output and evaluating what's left)
If folks want to debate other controversial things that may affect amplifier sound (i.e. microphonics), that's great. But it would be nice if we could leave people's age and other personal issues out of the discussion.
There are obviously some contributors to this thread with strong knowledge in particular areas. While one may know the nuances of semiconductor physics, another may know human psychology, another may bring valid outside references to the discussion, and still others may have first hand experience with blind listening sessions of amplifiers. ALL of their opinions and contributions towards the topics at hand are equally welcome and valid IMHO.
Well said! And, as even Fred has seemingly admited, psychological factors do alter perception. And it follows they can get in the way of truth when it comes to evaluating audio gear.Steve Eddy said:
Again, at the risk of being obvious, the issues at hand here are the validity of:
1 - Blind Listening Tests (as compared to non-blind listening)
2 - Null Difference Testing of amplifiers (that is subtracting the input from the output and evaluating what's left)
If folks want to debate other controversial things that may affect amplifier sound (i.e. microphonics), that's great. But it would be nice if we could leave people's age and other personal issues out of the discussion.
There are obviously some contributors to this thread with strong knowledge in particular areas. While one may know the nuances of semiconductor physics, another may know human psychology, another may bring valid outside references to the discussion, and still others may have first hand experience with blind listening sessions of amplifiers. ALL of their opinions and contributions towards the topics at hand are equally welcome and valid IMHO.
just one word plastics
I'll resist the temptation to tell you to put a cork in it (gentle humor that SY will understand) And if I ever need to know anything about plastic, your the man.
I can't agree with all the assumptions concerning resistor tempcos. I do not believe that the conclusions on time constant and thermal mass are insignificant. I was involved in the design of protection circuits for lightning (short time constants) and power cross (60 Hz) While this is on the macro rather than micro end of scale the consideration of time constants was a factor.
There is too much correlation between the best sounding resistors and the fact that they tend to have the lost temperature coefficient. I just don't believe this is a coincidence, way too much experience listening to resistors and amplifiers and preamplifiers with the best resistors.
To the rest of you:
I really think this all boils down to the motivation and effort put to investigating these issues. Those of you that hear these differences don't believe all the claims made, but unwilling to write it off to delusion, or think that it can always be heard in a double blind test. Test often full of variables that the adherents of, seem willing to overlook. It is not scientific rigor that I object to, but scientific rigor mortis. There are widely held opinions that the distortion measurements don't correlate completely with what we hear. Maybe we are not measuring the right thing. Maybe the resolution what we measure is not sufficient. I have run into these problems troubleshooting telecom circuits that were a lot simpler that the task at hand. Science's understanding of the brain and sensory perception is rapidly increasing. Instrumentation and computers get better at a dizzying pace. I don't think we have begun to exhaust the possibilities of testing in audio circuits, and I won't write off what people hear as delusion and sloppy science. Amateur speaker builders use FFT analysis, Spice modeling, and, speaker design software and these are just the motivated amateurs. I expect the real engineers and scientist to work on figuring out why we hear this things
and improve their testing until it is able to resolve this differences. What are the Double Blind proponents offering us in return, a way to go backwards in audio design? High End audio is designed to take us further into the music not to take everything to a level playing field or the status quo. Early solid state and digital design took us backwards, all in the name of better measurement numbers. the first time my wife heard a CD player she turned around and asked me if it was broken.
I have no problem with double blind testing seeking to quantify difference in amplifiers and try to make sure the differences we hear not just easily understood things like level, frequency response differences, and gross distortion. When the intent of the test is to make to different sounding amps sound the same, what is the point? Is the state of the art fine now? Is there some augment about some real danger or public disservice in making sound it better. Is it the new crack cocaine? Are people going to rob, murder, or prostitute themselves for a better stereo? Is building our own amplifier with good parts going to cost more than mid fi? What are you "double blind, sounds the same, just measure it" people saving as from? I think a much more interesting question is what are you trying to save yourselves from?
Arthur C. Clarke said "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Maybe some of you should stop writing this all off as belief in magic and go do some investigation into sufficiently advanced technology.......
I propose a new testing strategy called the deaf dumb blind test or DDB test for short.
Don't hear differences in amplifiers that can't be explained by double blind testing. Don't even try.
Don't see what others are attempting to do to explore these differences, or look at your test method to see any limitations.
Believe in the pronouncements of a few self proclaimed experts and ignore the reports of hundreds of motivated curious people.
I'll resist the temptation to tell you to put a cork in it (gentle humor that SY will understand) And if I ever need to know anything about plastic, your the man.
I can't agree with all the assumptions concerning resistor tempcos. I do not believe that the conclusions on time constant and thermal mass are insignificant. I was involved in the design of protection circuits for lightning (short time constants) and power cross (60 Hz) While this is on the macro rather than micro end of scale the consideration of time constants was a factor.
There is too much correlation between the best sounding resistors and the fact that they tend to have the lost temperature coefficient. I just don't believe this is a coincidence, way too much experience listening to resistors and amplifiers and preamplifiers with the best resistors.
To the rest of you:
I really think this all boils down to the motivation and effort put to investigating these issues. Those of you that hear these differences don't believe all the claims made, but unwilling to write it off to delusion, or think that it can always be heard in a double blind test. Test often full of variables that the adherents of, seem willing to overlook. It is not scientific rigor that I object to, but scientific rigor mortis. There are widely held opinions that the distortion measurements don't correlate completely with what we hear. Maybe we are not measuring the right thing. Maybe the resolution what we measure is not sufficient. I have run into these problems troubleshooting telecom circuits that were a lot simpler that the task at hand. Science's understanding of the brain and sensory perception is rapidly increasing. Instrumentation and computers get better at a dizzying pace. I don't think we have begun to exhaust the possibilities of testing in audio circuits, and I won't write off what people hear as delusion and sloppy science. Amateur speaker builders use FFT analysis, Spice modeling, and, speaker design software and these are just the motivated amateurs. I expect the real engineers and scientist to work on figuring out why we hear this things
and improve their testing until it is able to resolve this differences. What are the Double Blind proponents offering us in return, a way to go backwards in audio design? High End audio is designed to take us further into the music not to take everything to a level playing field or the status quo. Early solid state and digital design took us backwards, all in the name of better measurement numbers. the first time my wife heard a CD player she turned around and asked me if it was broken.
I have no problem with double blind testing seeking to quantify difference in amplifiers and try to make sure the differences we hear not just easily understood things like level, frequency response differences, and gross distortion. When the intent of the test is to make to different sounding amps sound the same, what is the point? Is the state of the art fine now? Is there some augment about some real danger or public disservice in making sound it better. Is it the new crack cocaine? Are people going to rob, murder, or prostitute themselves for a better stereo? Is building our own amplifier with good parts going to cost more than mid fi? What are you "double blind, sounds the same, just measure it" people saving as from? I think a much more interesting question is what are you trying to save yourselves from?
Arthur C. Clarke said "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Maybe some of you should stop writing this all off as belief in magic and go do some investigation into sufficiently advanced technology.......
I propose a new testing strategy called the deaf dumb blind test or DDB test for short.
Don't hear differences in amplifiers that can't be explained by double blind testing. Don't even try.
Don't see what others are attempting to do to explore these differences, or look at your test method to see any limitations.
Believe in the pronouncements of a few self proclaimed experts and ignore the reports of hundreds of motivated curious people.
Attachments
Re: Re: Steve is right, IMO
Interestingly, in amplifier null difference testing, you DO get a considerably higher average difference value using music than you do with a single sine wave. But if you were to do null testing with multiple sine waves, weighted for roughly the energy content of the music, at some large number of frquencies across the audio spectrum, would the RMS difference results sum up to the same value you get with music? I don't know.
Besides sine waves and music, bandwidth limited pink noise also makes a useful source for null testing. It's random in nature, somewhat approximates the spectrum of music, contains all audible frequencies and is easier to measure with. But, for the die-hards in the crowd, it's harder to argue the validity of a null test if you use your favorite, most reavealing, evaluation CD as the source signal.
I'm, for one, am not suggesting CDs (or the technologies behind them) are perfect, but the fact is, they're what the majority of us listen to most of the time. So in that sense, I argue they're a valid test signal. As to the debate of representing music with sine waves, I'm going to stay out of that one except to mention the following:planet10 said:
Interestingly, in amplifier null difference testing, you DO get a considerably higher average difference value using music than you do with a single sine wave. But if you were to do null testing with multiple sine waves, weighted for roughly the energy content of the music, at some large number of frquencies across the audio spectrum, would the RMS difference results sum up to the same value you get with music? I don't know.
Besides sine waves and music, bandwidth limited pink noise also makes a useful source for null testing. It's random in nature, somewhat approximates the spectrum of music, contains all audible frequencies and is easier to measure with. But, for the die-hards in the crowd, it's harder to argue the validity of a null test if you use your favorite, most reavealing, evaluation CD as the source signal.
Re: just one word plastics
If some of you want to spend $75 on capacitors because they make you feel good, or help you sleep better at night, or you just don't want to bother with any objective testing, THAT'S FINE! But, for those who prefer to focus on the things that matter, perhaps those with limited budgets, I'm just trying to present some tools to determine what things will really make a difference to them in their system.
I'm willing to let the subjectivists spend all the money they want on their own systems. But it bothers me when they fly in the face of all the objective evidence and try to convince everyone just because they hear something, under heavy psychological bias, it must be real.
If Fred or Peter or anyone else here was saying "I buy/build really high-end esoteric stuff because it makes me feel good and it sounds better to me" I'd say GREAT! But many of you are trying to argue the differences you hear, under very subjective biased conditions, are REAL and of potential benefit to others.
Some of you are even going so far as to come up with technical reasons why you hear what you hear that stretch credibility beyond belief. Instead of saying, "Yeah, it may be only psychological bias, but whatever the reason, I like the sound of my exotic resistors." You're trying to come up with incredibly weak technical explanations as to justify your biased listening results. Further, you're at a loss to explain away all the objective evidence that opposes you.
I ask folks bothering to read this far to consider which of the two is more likely and passes the test of common sense:
1 - Psychological bias, a well proven human phenomena, is likely responsible for the things people claim to hear when they know what they're listening to but disappear when they don't.
2 - If a person hears a difference, even though they're biased by knowing what they're listening to, and that difference disappears during a blind test, the blind test must somehow be flawed. Further, when we try to measure for any differences, even using extremely sensitive tests like the null difference test, no objective differences can be found. In this case, the blind tests and all of the objective tests must be in error as that person must be correct in what they hear--biased or not.
I've only stated the answer to the above a half dozen or so times but I'll state it again: I'm only trying to "save" people from spending more money on things that don't make an HONEST audible difference in their system. If blind testing shows they're just as happy listening to $0.50 capacitors, why spend $75 on them?Fred Dieckmann said:
If some of you want to spend $75 on capacitors because they make you feel good, or help you sleep better at night, or you just don't want to bother with any objective testing, THAT'S FINE! But, for those who prefer to focus on the things that matter, perhaps those with limited budgets, I'm just trying to present some tools to determine what things will really make a difference to them in their system.
I'm willing to let the subjectivists spend all the money they want on their own systems. But it bothers me when they fly in the face of all the objective evidence and try to convince everyone just because they hear something, under heavy psychological bias, it must be real.
If Fred or Peter or anyone else here was saying "I buy/build really high-end esoteric stuff because it makes me feel good and it sounds better to me" I'd say GREAT! But many of you are trying to argue the differences you hear, under very subjective biased conditions, are REAL and of potential benefit to others.
Some of you are even going so far as to come up with technical reasons why you hear what you hear that stretch credibility beyond belief. Instead of saying, "Yeah, it may be only psychological bias, but whatever the reason, I like the sound of my exotic resistors." You're trying to come up with incredibly weak technical explanations as to justify your biased listening results. Further, you're at a loss to explain away all the objective evidence that opposes you.
I ask folks bothering to read this far to consider which of the two is more likely and passes the test of common sense:
1 - Psychological bias, a well proven human phenomena, is likely responsible for the things people claim to hear when they know what they're listening to but disappear when they don't.
2 - If a person hears a difference, even though they're biased by knowing what they're listening to, and that difference disappears during a blind test, the blind test must somehow be flawed. Further, when we try to measure for any differences, even using extremely sensitive tests like the null difference test, no objective differences can be found. In this case, the blind tests and all of the objective tests must be in error as that person must be correct in what they hear--biased or not.
ASSUMPTIONS, ASSUMPTIONS...
Hi,
Ah, so we are subjectivists...you automatically assume we do not measure our stuff, you're wrong.
What objective evidence are you talking about?Now that bothers me...
Who is trying to convince who here? You certainly haven't convinced me and quite likely you never will.
If we, and together with us other people hear, repeatedly, differences we have no means of measuring does that mean the differences aren't there?
Heavy psychological bias? Biased towards what exactly?
Yes, it is real.
Naturally it makes life a lot easier dismissing audible yet unmeasurable differences claiming that if they can't be measured it therefore follows they're just not there.
I find that approach errrr, rather medieval.
I find this kind of attitude rather disturbing and if people keep that up nothing will ever change, well, not for the better anyway.
Fred mentioned tempco in resistors, he could no doubt add a myriad of other factors that influence sound...never, ever forget that music is dynamic and very complex in its content.
Oh, and capacitors are an even more difficult model to control in case you haven't noticed.
Note that these are just passive components, active components are nothing more than a complex series of passive brought to live under tension.
If you want to, and I hasten to add I don't know if it's the case in the U.S. of A, you can actually get a lot of help of the universities if you're a company...you'd be surprised to learn it doesn't cost you a dime.
Anyway, you seem to have your rigid beliefs...me I learned to be a tad more flexible over the years.
Cheers,
Hi,
Ah, so we are subjectivists...you automatically assume we do not measure our stuff, you're wrong.
What objective evidence are you talking about?Now that bothers me...
Who is trying to convince who here? You certainly haven't convinced me and quite likely you never will.
If we, and together with us other people hear, repeatedly, differences we have no means of measuring does that mean the differences aren't there?
Heavy psychological bias? Biased towards what exactly?
Yes, it is real.
Naturally it makes life a lot easier dismissing audible yet unmeasurable differences claiming that if they can't be measured it therefore follows they're just not there.
I find that approach errrr, rather medieval.
I find this kind of attitude rather disturbing and if people keep that up nothing will ever change, well, not for the better anyway.
Fred mentioned tempco in resistors, he could no doubt add a myriad of other factors that influence sound...never, ever forget that music is dynamic and very complex in its content.
Oh, and capacitors are an even more difficult model to control in case you haven't noticed.
Note that these are just passive components, active components are nothing more than a complex series of passive brought to live under tension.
If you want to, and I hasten to add I don't know if it's the case in the U.S. of A, you can actually get a lot of help of the universities if you're a company...you'd be surprised to learn it doesn't cost you a dime.
Anyway, you seem to have your rigid beliefs...me I learned to be a tad more flexible over the years.
Cheers,
Re: just one word plastics
I don't think that correlation is terribly meaningful.
I've only noticed such a correlation among those who are already of the belief that the best objective performance gives the best subjective result. So they're always going after resistors with the lowest tempco, dielectrics with the lowest dielectric constant, conductors with the highest purity and fewest crystals, etc.
And invariably whenever they can come up with some improvement, no matter how microscoically small and insignificant (such as the difference between 99.999% pure copper and 99.9999% pure copper), they invariably perceive it to be subjectively better.
I think if there's any meaningful correlation here, it's that our subjective perceptions tend to mirror our pre-existing beleifs. The correlation you offer here is akin to saying there's a correlation among Christians about the divinitiy of Christ.
You say the correlation is so significant that you don't believe it's due to coincidence, well, I don't necessarily think it's a coincidence either.
We're constantly being inundated with the notion that better objective quality ipso facto translates into better subjective quality. Not just through marketing, but also through peer pressure. And not just in audio, but in many other aspects of our daily lives as well. And when you look at the objectively better equals subjectively better correlation in this light, it's not surprising at all.
Now, when you look at those who don't hold such pre-existing beliefs to a significant degree, suddenly there isn't the same sort of correlation with objective criteria.
We're all victims of "group think" to one degree or another. We're basically insecure and we tend to feel more comfortable when we're part of a group of like-minded individuals.
Sometimes an intrepid, independent soul decides to see what's out there beyond the current group and sometimes they find something which may be completely at odds with the prevailing wisdom of the group but ultimately it gives them greater satisfaction.
Sometimes these individuals remain as outcasts. But other times, other members of the group start to wander off as well and discover these new thoughts and sensations and eventually the group think paradigm changes completely.
So again, I don't think the correlation you offer here is terribly meaningful.
se
Fred Dieckmann said:
I don't think that correlation is terribly meaningful.
I've only noticed such a correlation among those who are already of the belief that the best objective performance gives the best subjective result. So they're always going after resistors with the lowest tempco, dielectrics with the lowest dielectric constant, conductors with the highest purity and fewest crystals, etc.
And invariably whenever they can come up with some improvement, no matter how microscoically small and insignificant (such as the difference between 99.999% pure copper and 99.9999% pure copper), they invariably perceive it to be subjectively better.
I think if there's any meaningful correlation here, it's that our subjective perceptions tend to mirror our pre-existing beleifs. The correlation you offer here is akin to saying there's a correlation among Christians about the divinitiy of Christ.
You say the correlation is so significant that you don't believe it's due to coincidence, well, I don't necessarily think it's a coincidence either.
We're constantly being inundated with the notion that better objective quality ipso facto translates into better subjective quality. Not just through marketing, but also through peer pressure. And not just in audio, but in many other aspects of our daily lives as well. And when you look at the objectively better equals subjectively better correlation in this light, it's not surprising at all.
Now, when you look at those who don't hold such pre-existing beliefs to a significant degree, suddenly there isn't the same sort of correlation with objective criteria.
We're all victims of "group think" to one degree or another. We're basically insecure and we tend to feel more comfortable when we're part of a group of like-minded individuals.
Sometimes an intrepid, independent soul decides to see what's out there beyond the current group and sometimes they find something which may be completely at odds with the prevailing wisdom of the group but ultimately it gives them greater satisfaction.
Sometimes these individuals remain as outcasts. But other times, other members of the group start to wander off as well and discover these new thoughts and sensations and eventually the group think paradigm changes completely.
So again, I don't think the correlation you offer here is terribly meaningful.
se
Re: Re: just one word plastics
It is documented that under hypnosis, when someone is told to be stung by a bee, the person automaticly develops swelling in that area. How real is it?
Our whole lives are one big subjective experiences and you cannot classify everybody in comparison to your skills. If you were unable to pass double blind test and until I will not fail one, the above statement you made is not true. I suggest you get REAL and stick to the facts.
nw_avphile said:
It is documented that under hypnosis, when someone is told to be stung by a bee, the person automaticly develops swelling in that area. How real is it?
Our whole lives are one big subjective experiences and you cannot classify everybody in comparison to your skills. If you were unable to pass double blind test and until I will not fail one, the above statement you made is not true. I suggest you get REAL and stick to the facts.
STEVIE I WONDER...
Hi,
So, according to your previous post we should go back to noisy carbon comp resistors, beeswax paper caps, use dirty copper cables, use contaminated dirty substrates, use as much crystals as possible in our cables...nothing matters really.
Not even contact resistance etc, etc...it's all just a waste of time and money.
Hmmm....sounds good to me,
Hi,
So, according to your previous post we should go back to noisy carbon comp resistors, beeswax paper caps, use dirty copper cables, use contaminated dirty substrates, use as much crystals as possible in our cables...nothing matters really.
Not even contact resistance etc, etc...it's all just a waste of time and money.
Hmmm....sounds good to me,
nw_avphile...
i reckon this thread is like Galileo trying to convince the papacy that earth goes around the sun, and not conversely.........you will be burned at the stake.....!!
No one...but no one has given a single satisfactory response to the key assertion that all amps. driven within their power ratings, to the same voltage swing, across the same load in turn cannot be distinguished by listening to them, provided their measured distortion is below 1000ppm across the audio band...
This is as much an established scientific fact as any you might care to name...........which no amount of words and debate and screaming will alter...
...and folks, you can rest assured that resistor tempco has about the same effect on your ears as a blade of grass beneath an elephant....
i reckon this thread is like Galileo trying to convince the papacy that earth goes around the sun, and not conversely.........you will be burned at the stake.....!!
No one...but no one has given a single satisfactory response to the key assertion that all amps. driven within their power ratings, to the same voltage swing, across the same load in turn cannot be distinguished by listening to them, provided their measured distortion is below 1000ppm across the audio band...
This is as much an established scientific fact as any you might care to name...........which no amount of words and debate and screaming will alter...
...and folks, you can rest assured that resistor tempco has about the same effect on your ears as a blade of grass beneath an elephant....
Submarine.
Hi,
A subjectivist may not want to, I do however like to know why I hear differences I don't know how to measure.
The assumption that we are subjectivists is wrong...
From what I recall from you Steve, you're much more a subjectivist than we are and frankly that's fine by me, just don't go pseudo-scientific on me.
Cheers,
Hi,
A subjectivist may not want to, I do however like to know why I hear differences I don't know how to measure.
The assumption that we are subjectivists is wrong...
From what I recall from you Steve, you're much more a subjectivist than we are and frankly that's fine by me, just don't go pseudo-scientific on me.
Cheers,
Re: ASSUMPTIONS, ASSUMPTIONS...
No, but neither does it mean that they are. I think what's at issue here are those who assert that they are without any convincing evidence to support the assertion.
Er, what differences have been established to actually be audible but which cannot be measured? I can't say that I'm aware of any.
What's Mediveal is the notion that a consensus somehow constitutes proof.
Things rarely change when people become religiously dogmatic.
I think you rather grossly overstate things here.
What one should never, ever forget is that all that we can possibly hear from our audio systems, be it sinewaves or music or anything else, amounts to nothing more than changes in air pressure over time.
We have the capability to measure down to the thermal noise floor of the air itself and far beyond the audio band.
So, just what exactly could we possibly actually hear that we cannot also measure?
se
fdegrove said:
No, but neither does it mean that they are. I think what's at issue here are those who assert that they are without any convincing evidence to support the assertion.
Er, what differences have been established to actually be audible but which cannot be measured? I can't say that I'm aware of any.
What's Mediveal is the notion that a consensus somehow constitutes proof.
Things rarely change when people become religiously dogmatic.
I think you rather grossly overstate things here.
What one should never, ever forget is that all that we can possibly hear from our audio systems, be it sinewaves or music or anything else, amounts to nothing more than changes in air pressure over time.
We have the capability to measure down to the thermal noise floor of the air itself and far beyond the audio band.
So, just what exactly could we possibly actually hear that we cannot also measure?
se
Re: Submarine.
Ok, so it's a matter of curiousity. That's cool.
But I think many seem to want to put the cart before the horse by automatically assuming that their subjective perceptions are entirely due to objective realities. While that may be the case, it may just as well not be the case.
So it seems to me that a logical first course of action is to objectively establish actual audibility. Until one has done that, I can't see how one can possibly start measuring things and come up with any meaningful conclusions.
If it does turn out to be a psychological issue, you can measure for the next ten lifetimes and not come up with the right answer. And what good is that?
Don't worry. I keep my subjectivity and objectivity a safe distance from each other.
se
fdegrove said:
Ok, so it's a matter of curiousity. That's cool.
But I think many seem to want to put the cart before the horse by automatically assuming that their subjective perceptions are entirely due to objective realities. While that may be the case, it may just as well not be the case.
So it seems to me that a logical first course of action is to objectively establish actual audibility. Until one has done that, I can't see how one can possibly start measuring things and come up with any meaningful conclusions.
If it does turn out to be a psychological issue, you can measure for the next ten lifetimes and not come up with the right answer. And what good is that?
Don't worry. I keep my subjectivity and objectivity a safe distance from each other.
se
- Status
- Not open for further replies.