No question that test signals will be most useful for determining JND; certainly when I was playing with audibility of polarity, I could generate test signals that would give me significant results ears-only, but I could never consistently do that with music. I think that I'd want to see some data that somehow listener sensitivity to crossover distortion on program material (assuming a good listener who can detect the differences on test signals) increases with "experience." And if so, by how much? I suspect (and I emphasize that word!) that it will still be much higher than can be detected on sine waves.
I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Looks pretty "hi-fi" to me, THD below 0.005% 20Hz-20Khz, frequency response within 0.1dB ref 1KHz over the same band. (Note that those are measurements of a real, built example (not mine), not a sim.)
Yes, you could get similar performance from a quality IC opamp like the 627. In fact I have a very nice phono stage that use OPA627, and my line stage is a DCB1. They are both wonderful.
This is interesting - we often hear/see it stated that sine wave testing of amps can make distortions go unnoticed, because it is not music; music is much more complex, and it is music we listen to.
However, what is stated above seems to point out that sine wave tests are much move sensitive than music tests. Hmmm.
Jan
The discussion was about "hi-fi". SY complained about what I thought was people's definition of "hi-fi". I admit I have no idea. So to make it simple, to find out how DF96 defines "hi-fi", and to be down to earth, I asked "which one is more hi-fi, the DCB1 or the OPA627?"
When DF69 or SY or anyone can answer that question, at least I can figure out how they define "hi-fi".
So that's how you define "hi-fi". May be SY would agree with your definition.
I'm familiar with both. My question was triggered by DF69's statement not to confuse "enjoyment" with "hi-fi".
Another test of distortion detectability:
Experimental Study : Distortion - Axiom Audio
Note the implementation of ‘distortion’ (synthesized noise acoustically added to the music)
George
Experimental Study : Distortion - Axiom Audio
Note the implementation of ‘distortion’ (synthesized noise acoustically added to the music)
George
So wrong Frank, so wrong. Maybe you should inform the whole of the photographic, graphical and any other image based community that using calibrators for their monitors is WRONG and they should use their eyes.
Learn about our vision, learn about monitor calibration.
YOU DO NOT SET A MONITOR UP BT EYES.....got that it doesn't work.
This explains you view on audio as well, you trust your perception to much you are fooling yourself.
The standard doesn't drift, its not a short cut way, it is the only reliable way of getting correct colours, same with printers...Jeez do some study before you start sprouting rubbish please, eyes and our vision cannot be relied upon.
All monitors in a studio and editing suite are calibrated, not by eye....I cannot understand your stubborn approach and insistence that you can calibrate by eye! When no-one in the profession uses their eyes to calibrate!
I would look up the various colour spaces and related information.
Last edited:
It seems to me that this is just another repackaged/rebadged quarrel between those who believe eveyrthing can be measured and if it measures well then by default it is better than something else that does not measure as well.
We've been through this several times now, never reaching any consensus on anything, so I don't see what you expect to achieve now? Jay only strayed into this, he was just playing hopscotch on a mine field and ran out of luck.
And Sy, FYI, Third World schools do not even have busses, many kids have to walk for miles to get to school if they are lucky enough to even have them. If in Africa, they may have to dodge a bullet or two along the way.
Regarding TV studio montior calibration, about 20 years ago this was done using a Sony Calibration monitor, a smart little black box costing like $7k for a 15" screen with a picture so good it's hard to belive. The whole studio setup, from video mixer onwards, was adjusted according to the test signal generated by that monitor. It was THE reference point.
We've been through this several times now, never reaching any consensus on anything, so I don't see what you expect to achieve now? Jay only strayed into this, he was just playing hopscotch on a mine field and ran out of luck.
And Sy, FYI, Third World schools do not even have busses, many kids have to walk for miles to get to school if they are lucky enough to even have them. If in Africa, they may have to dodge a bullet or two along the way.
Regarding TV studio montior calibration, about 20 years ago this was done using a Sony Calibration monitor, a smart little black box costing like $7k for a 15" screen with a picture so good it's hard to belive. The whole studio setup, from video mixer onwards, was adjusted according to the test signal generated by that monitor. It was THE reference point.
I can't answer that question, as I have no knowledge whatsoever about either device. Fortunately, the meaning of words does not depend on knowledge of particular human artifacts. You are putting the cart before the horse: first define 'hi-fi', then decide which devices meet the definition. I have told you my definition, which I believe matches that of other people - so it is not actually my definition but the definition.Jay said:
If, as I suspect, those two devices are circuit components rather than audio system components then neither of them is 'hi-fi', any more than a resistor or a capacitor can be 'hi-fi'. If so, your question is even dafter than I thought.
Marce
Some older CRT monitors have inside of unit calibration switch , which when is in ON position override vertical deflection amplifier , so on the screen you get one horizontal flat line , this line must be absolute white in color , this can be done by adjusting several trimers which determine mutual output level between RGB video modulators of CRT three cathodes .
And yes for best result this adjusting is always done only with naked eye .
Best Regards
No it isn't an argument between people who believe everything can be measured, it is a fact about calibrating a monitor, like you would calibrate any equipment.
20 years ago maybe, now you can use a dedicated calibration tool, many top monitors come with them built in, this is fact not opinion regarding calibration and those that insist that eyes are the tool to use have it wrong. This illustrates to some extent (deliberately so) the problems we have in these discussions, the total refusal by some to believe their senses can fool them.
A calibrator measures the colours displayed and sets the monitor up to display these colours correctly...WHY do both professionals and amateurs doing any work with colour do this, its not a myth or an argument is a fact....
This is the emperors clothes syndrome coming out, you calibrate scopes, multi-meters etc why would you not calibrate a monitor correctly!
Even many years ago I used a calibration device. This is about fidelity not personal preference.
Sy was referring to the UK as 3rd world...
20 years ago maybe, now you can use a dedicated calibration tool, many top monitors come with them built in, this is fact not opinion regarding calibration and those that insist that eyes are the tool to use have it wrong. This illustrates to some extent (deliberately so) the problems we have in these discussions, the total refusal by some to believe their senses can fool them.
A calibrator measures the colours displayed and sets the monitor up to display these colours correctly...WHY do both professionals and amateurs doing any work with colour do this, its not a myth or an argument is a fact....
This is the emperors clothes syndrome coming out, you calibrate scopes, multi-meters etc why would you not calibrate a monitor correctly!
Even many years ago I used a calibration device. This is about fidelity not personal preference.
Sy was referring to the UK as 3rd world...
Nope, wrong sorry monitor calibration is not best done by eye. You cant detect absolute white by eye.......
I don`t agree ! , since if you don`t use artificial white light for reference light but broad day sun light for reference white light results will be the best on monitor screen .
You are wrong wrong wrong, why do they do calibrators for monitors, why do they use them in studios etc.
Your eyes have automatic white balance built in, that is just one factor.
As I have said this is a fact look up monitor calibration, doing it by eye only sets it up for your vision, based on ambient light etc, calibration does what it sais it sets the display device up to a known standard, so it you go from one monitor to another the colours will be the same.
How do you know what the colour temperature is of the light you are using? you don't unless you measure it.
18% grey anyone...
Disagreed on part of discussion related to sound, agreed on part related to calibrating mponitors, I think I was clear enough on that. And I should know, I shot my etire show in that studio 1985-1998. That calibartion standard monitor was God.
You can, but you need to 'sweep' the trimpots for two colours only in order to home in on the correct full white setting.
With practice it's perfectly repeatable.
Just like when an audio system sounds 'right' on all programme material, when a crt is set correctly the picture looks 'right' on all programme material.
The problem is with lcd displays....the pixel responses are not perfectly linear and require curve corrections.
This is when specialised test patterns and/or equipment is required.
Dan.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.