We call these secret hiding places "open literature," "scientific journals," and "the internet." Why, these references are even available in this thread, if you can trouble yourself to do your own searching. Otherwise, I'm not interested in feeding trolls.
Thanks Ray, you are on the right track. I have PERSONALLY debated Dr's Lipshitz, Vanderkooy, and even had discussions at AES with Toole, and Clark.
I JUST DON'T AGREE WITH THEM, and I found flaws in their testing that they continued to ignore, even when I pointed them out to them, both in print, and in person.
So much for double-blind testing by these 'hear no difference' enthusiasts.
I JUST DON'T AGREE WITH THEM, and I found flaws in their testing that they continued to ignore, even when I pointed them out to them, both in print, and in person.
So much for double-blind testing by these 'hear no difference' enthusiasts.
Yes, I've seen some of your "in print" criticisms. Bald assertion with no data didn't get you very far. But keep the True Believers believing! And keep on peeking while the rest of us trust our ears and don't need to cheat.
When we talk about 'true believers' we must understand there are different groups of 'true believers'. There are some 'true believers' like me who found that they could make progress in audio by listener's opinion, based on what they heard openly. You know "Trust your ears!" and this is my sect.
There is another 'sect' that believes that most listening differences are all an illusion, and they can PROVE it with Double Blind Tests of their own making. Nothing else will do. No open listening, no single blind tests, not even double blind test NOT made under their direction.
Now where does this leave us? Where is the tolerance for another point of view? What is the problem?
There is another 'sect' that believes that most listening differences are all an illusion, and they can PROVE it with Double Blind Tests of their own making. Nothing else will do. No open listening, no single blind tests, not even double blind test NOT made under their direction.
Now where does this leave us? Where is the tolerance for another point of view? What is the problem?
IOW "peeking." That's what you mean when you say "open," you're able to see or otherwise know what you're listening to by means other than the sound.
Of course, no one outside the voices in your head has ever said that or believes it. That won't stop you from saying it again for the thousandth time.
The initial Idss of the input device sets the PEAK output current swing that is possible with this stage. It is possible to actually run out of peak current, before running out of voltage swing. This is not optimum. Lots of extra distortion too!
The cascode part is a SLAVE to the input part and can only change its current as much as the input device can.
The cascode part is a SLAVE to the input part and can only change its current as much as the input device can.
You can ground these or not. Advantages and disadvantages to both ways. A little difference will show up in distortion residuals sometimes.
I once had most HP measurement equipment possible to buy / get and also rented GigaHertz FFT spectrum analyzers from the university.
What did those instrument give me that a very good signal generator ,a fast analog oscilloscope, a 4 channel digital oscilloscope, a 300 ohm headphone set and some multimeters could give?
Really nothing except waisted money and real-estate.
When I was building the prototypes of my AMTs and 8" drivers I invested in measurement equipment in several stages. The very early conceptual prototypes where I had trusted other companies and bought surrounds and other parts that was really bad was measured in the SEAS labs. But I did not want to show off the prototypes where all parts was designed by me. Several stages was due to limitations that prevented any meaningful measurements as I was interested in much more than SPL and 2nd harmonic, and needed to measure up to above 100kHz to check what happened above the traditional 20kHz.
It became instantly obvious that it was not possible to measure fidelity or even real distortion. I could damage the diaphragm in the AMTs so I was more distortion than the signal, but distortion measurements told that the total THD was better than -55dB in the whole measured frequency spectrum.
Actually a similar thing happened some 15 years ago.
I was the building some line source OB speakers and they sounded absolutely not good.
Measurements told that they should be perfect..
So I hooked up the signal generator and did a manual both peek and listening sweep. In both the left and right speaker I found drivers that made severe noises at different frequencies - real bad noises and impossible for anyone not completely deaf to not hear. I then replaced the four defective drivers and the speakers now sounded very good and have done that since.
It is obvious that I trust what I hear much more than standard measurements that may fool you completely...
You must be new here , the insults havent yet started .....
You can say that again.
No - It is as simple that some speaker driver manufacturers have a "listen and peek" test for their expensive drivers where one person listens for the noises, resonances, subbing voice coils etc. that the standard measurements cannot detect
Agree, each designer is going to trust their ears anyway or the ears of others, understanding the relationship of what we hear to what we measure is the key to the sonic signature we are looking for, in this respect is why audio playback is as much art as science, each have the sonic signature of the designer (s) and quite possibly why there is very rarely any consensus in audio.
I'm in agreement with John somewhat and do see the bias in the science represented by some...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.