Is that a typo - do you mean HDMI? So there is no way to get the HD audio from a PC? Or is it output on the HDMI video card output? This has always been a mystery to me because the video players are sadly lacking in info on this point.
Let me appologize for getting so far off topic. Is there somehwere that I should post this question that would make more sense?
Last edited:
Yes, typo, meant HDMI.
Lots of PC's have HDMI capability these days, but I'm not sure of the details as I don't use a HTPC, just BR -> projector + AVR
AVS Forums. Here is an excellent, and very long thread on HTPC construction details. Link takes you to latest system recs.
My PC is HDMI, but I go from the PC directly to the projector. If I get a new receiver I suppose that I could go from the PC to the receiver with HDMI and then on to the projector from the receiver HDMI output. This should then strip off the HD audio and send the video to the projector as is done now. Sound reasonable?
Do 300 people represent a statistically representative sample of the entire population of the world? Why? If the difference between trained and untrained does not exist why they insist in specifying every time their listeners are trained?
I see many different flags here but I would not say people preferences are so "flat". In that figure it looks like people have been grouped according to their overall choice. If you take into account why people prefer one loudspeaker over the others the error bars on that graph would be so big that you could not conclude anything.
Last edited:
I can't see any description about the error bars on that graph. They talk about the F-statics about the preference of trained listeners over untrained but a trained listener is still a person whose preferences could change o not, could change a little bit o substantially from one time to another according to their experience (in their real everyday life).
Last edited:
Their training is based on a limited number of specific things that could be of little interest for a music lover or a normal person that in end are the consumers!
Audio Musings by Sean Olive: listener training
As usual it is mostly based on frequency response and tonal balance and distortion. Is it exhaustive?
It is their standard. You could be biased as well.
In fact they conclude that students are the less reliable because they have little experience with high quality systems. However students could be the most reliable because they are not biased and what they listen to is not so strikingly "better" as the testers think.
On one thing I absolutely agree, it is speculation.....
Why don't they test persons untrained about hifi with a lot of experience with music? Both musicians and common people.
Audio Musings by Sean Olive: listener training
As usual it is mostly based on frequency response and tonal balance and distortion. Is it exhaustive?
It is their standard. You could be biased as well.
In fact they conclude that students are the less reliable because they have little experience with high quality systems. However students could be the most reliable because they are not biased and what they listen to is not so strikingly "better" as the testers think.
On one thing I absolutely agree, it is speculation.....
Why don't they test persons untrained about hifi with a lot of experience with music? Both musicians and common people.
Last edited:
Checking what is on a standard DVD is like buying CDs.....no one needs to any more at all.
The discussion of audio content on movies here is all about what is available on BluRay.
The Emotiva has been talked about for 2 years, its JUST coming out now. Pre-orders are being shipped for december but others will not see their new pre/pro until 2009.
Im a big fan of Emotiva products (The amps) generally but they drop the ball on the UMC-1 with the LONG delay. I wouldnt touch the first version, let others deal with the bugs so that means summer 2010....That means its outdated and the Onkyo 886 is a better purchase at that point (its $1K now) with the avialable PRO Audyssey correct system.
Lots of OT stuff now 😉
But that has nothing to do with the conversation. They are $200 actually so there is no excuse for audiophiles who spend GOBS of money just on a 2 channel setup.
As I said already Custom high end HT has BluRay and the content is not AC-3!!
Yes, I did, that's the problem 😉 The findings are interesting and certainly something to keep in mind but they are of no real practical relevance. A special test tone was used, not music. The claim that "listeners prefer higher sampling rates (e.g., 96 kHz) than the 44.1 kHz of the digital compact disk" is probably the result of quality differences in the source material (again, see AES E-Library: Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback). Moreover high resolution audio is available, especially on movie soundtracks. This issues discussed here are secondary to me. It's like asking "Pro vs hifi drivers - pros and cons?" 🙂
Best, Markus
Because they don't want to evaluate the quality of music but the sound quality (errors, localization, spaciousness, etc.). These are two completely different issues.
Something to think about: do musicians playing in a symphonic orchestra have the same sound sensation as someone sitting in the audience?
Best, Markus
Okay, I'll agree with this. When "DBT" comes into a discussion, we're 99.99% of the time talking about short term blind testing. It's my opinion that over a longer time period, a more reliable blind test can be established, but it requires time, note-taking, and a much more difficult method to apply for large groups.
Certainly what's actually happening sonically for most listeners is very different than what they'll perceive in many or most situations. But DBT (As typically implemented in audio testing) creates as many problems as it solves.
Don't think it creates "problems". It helps us to understand sound perception. Talking about sound perception on a solely subjective level leads to nowhere. We all perceive the same level of spaciousness, distortion, etc. That's what psychoacoustic studies have revealed. There might be interpersonal differences how processes in our brain lead to these sensations but that doesn't relativize blind tests. The more knowledge we gain the more complicated things become.
Best, Markus
Last edited:
No, that's what psychoacustic studies suggest. Look at the data Blauert has gathered in his book "Spatial Hearing".
Best, Markus
I have witnessed the failure of this suggestion first hand, and will never accept it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.