First of all, SY, just because I DECLINE from a test, doesn't mean that I 'RAN AWAY' from something, and I resent it being put that way.
Should I accuse you of 'RUNNING AWAY' from meeting Jack Bybee and actually talking to him about his 'quantum purifiers' just because you declined to do so? It, by the way, did NOT stop you from making a value judgement on his stuff, WITHOUT a complete analysis?
Should I accuse you of 'RUNNING AWAY' from meeting Jack Bybee and actually talking to him about his 'quantum purifiers' just because you declined to do so? It, by the way, did NOT stop you from making a value judgement on his stuff, WITHOUT a complete analysis?
You might find his current discussions on LinkedIn illuminating. Short version: there's so much error in the acoustic field sampling and replay, the phase/waveform shape issues are lost.
Feel free to do so if you like. His product either does what it claims or it doesn't (it didn't), independent of whether I took a ride in his Bentley.
Do i have to register to follow or find his discussion? (First search attempt led to login )
I thought DF96 was asking for a general hearing sense mechanism and the current understanding afaik is, that our ears are indeed waveform shape analyzers as well.
And i think your example with the dbt confirms that, doesn´t it??
Thanks John, much appreciated. As you know, it takes more than one simple 30 minute test to come to proper conclusions. It takes years of dedication and learning. College textbooks only contain basic information, enough for continued research and development at one's occupation.
I am sure you noticed before me, that much of the flac we receive, on various forums, occurs from those who do little if any research of their own. Their source of information is usually, if not all, hearsay from reading someone elses book. I can understand funds or time limit experimentation.
At the same time, I am always leary of a book whose author(s) has a conflict of interest such as being an employer or employee of an audio company.
Cheers and good luck John.
Last edited:
What about the second question?
Yes for the special case of Hawksford's test, no for the general case. If you consider a reductio ad absurdum, think of an all pass that delays the highs by 4 seconds. No-one would argue that this would be inaudible despite being all pass.
Scott,
Yesterday I was at home waiting for my guy to come and do yard work so I was just on the cellphone.
The correct number should have been "Point One Percent Distortion" (My Bad!)
BTY many ceramic capacitors are rated for full power at 150 degrees C or higher! I could not find the rating on the Mills.
I have had ceramic resistors unsolder themselves from PC cards when used at rated power! That is why the wise folks stand them off a bit from the card!
Yesterday I was at home waiting for my guy to come and do yard work so I was just on the cellphone.
The correct number should have been "Point One Percent Distortion" (My Bad!)
BTY many ceramic capacitors are rated for full power at 150 degrees C or higher! I could not find the rating on the Mills.
I have had ceramic resistors unsolder themselves from PC cards when used at rated power! That is why the wise folks stand them off a bit from the card!
So, thus far, you have accused me of being at best gullible, and the source of a story I related to be possibly lying, and my gullibility based on unspecified preexisting beliefs. And now your aspersions are being cast on the preeminent authority on loudspeakers and rooms, because of supposed conflicts of interest associated with his employer (for whom, btw, he at most has a very-part-time consulting relationship now, for some years). This is almost as bad as Tom Holman stating (after his misguided prescriptions were challenged in the book) that Toole's book wasn't, after all, "peer-reviewed" (actually it was, but the publisher left out the list of reviewers).
So one is to be leery of anyone who writes a book on audio if he or she is either an audio company employee or employs people in such a company. Why not just extend this to anyone who writes at all, who might someday be thus employed?
By definition it is called a conflict of interest bc, that is the difference. It was also my personal view. I have no idea of who you are, and I did not have you in mind. My reply was to John.
Please accept my apologies if you are offended. However, I do not apologize for my opinion.
Cheers.
Last edited:
Bcarso, let us not confuse the situation. Some people actually DON'T believe in 'hi end' audio quality, AND they write books that imply this, even though they also appear to be associated with companies that make audio equipment. This is just reality, AND they can be 'suspected' as to their motives, at least as much as my colleagues and I are 'suspected' by SY and others as to our motives.
Last edited:
Am I right in thinking that the all-pass was applied digitally, so both channels would have received exactly the same filter? An analogue all-pass could simply apply a slightly different phase shift to each channel, due to component or measurement tolerances, which would be expected to show up in stereo.SY said:
This is of course a side-issue. If waveshape is important, then FFT is not a useful tool for analysis as it does not easily present waveshape in the results. This does not mean that any result obtained from FFT or a full Fourier analysis is false, as that is quite a different issue. I wonder whether some people may be confusing these two issues. Let us assume for a moment that waveshape is very audible. It is still true that a CR filter does not introduce non-linear distortion, because no new frequency components are generated. It might sound different, but that is what tone controls do!
I´m sorry, but i am a bit lost on this one.
I simply don´t know what Hawksford experiment SY is referring to, nor what the dbt was like.
But, that in human ears, because of physiological reasons, exists some phase locking for frequencies up to ~ 5kHz is known for decades.
At higher frequencies there is some sort of envelope processing.
There were studies back from the ´70s which tested audibility of presentations of the same spectral content in a stimulus with normal and reversed order.
Questionable is the range of temporal resolution, see the discussions of Kunchur´s work or:
Krumbholz et al., ´Microsecond temporal resolution in monaural hearing
without spectral cues?´
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113 (5), May 2003
I simply don´t know what Hawksford experiment SY is referring to, nor what the dbt was like.
But, that in human ears, because of physiological reasons, exists some phase locking for frequencies up to ~ 5kHz is known for decades.
At higher frequencies there is some sort of envelope processing.
There were studies back from the ´70s which tested audibility of presentations of the same spectral content in a stimulus with normal and reversed order.
Questionable is the range of temporal resolution, see the discussions of Kunchur´s work or:
Krumbholz et al., ´Microsecond temporal resolution in monaural hearing
without spectral cues?´
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113 (5), May 2003
Now, take speakers that can be heard by whole body, and repeat the test. As I said, phase coherence is vital in fooling imagination as if sounds are real, especially when you have adequate low frequency reproduction. It is well heard on percussions, even on triangles.
However, when you hear "Nice quality of reproduction through headphones" it is a different story. "Nice quality" and "real sounds" are different things. The question is about realism.
However, when you hear "Nice quality of reproduction through headphones" it is a different story. "Nice quality" and "real sounds" are different things. The question is about realism.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.