Everyone can choose to have or not have any religious beliefs.But to equal someone's religious beliefs with cables or anything cheap without any reason,the way you do,it is provocative,and to say the least,pathetic.Don't be afraid,no one wants to attack your lack of any kind of belief.
I think he did the comparison regarding the fact that both beliefs are, well, beliefs, contrary to something that is scientifically proven. I didn't read anything more into it.
jd
And he stated as an opinion by stating "I never believed" rather than as a statement of fact as alluded by the poster (example would be "There is no" etc.).
If you would have read the article you would know what Haas has discovered. I don't know why but English literature notoriously misuses the term "Haas window" or "Haas effect". It has nothing to do with sound reproduction in acoustically small rooms.
If you're interested in detection thresholds of reflections, Toole shows some data in his book "Sound reproduction".
Last edited:
Do you really believe what you've just said?I have not asked him for excuses.He posted something and I have replied to him.That's all.
Well, the only thing that I can add, is that peer review is not what many here think it actually is. For example, Einstein could not have published his early work in 1905, if the editor insisted on 'peer review'. This is also the problem with the AES, today, and for the last 30 years or so. New ideas do not get a chance.
Now when it comes to double-blind listening tests similar to ABX, I have put in writing my concerns and criticisms of it, based on my own experience, 31 years ago. Not much has changed since then. Certainly, nobody here has said or discovered anything that changes my opinion about this sort of testing.
I try, in print, to just publish measurements and listening impressions, usually of specific components used in audio. I stand behind what I have measured, whether it be wires, DA, TIM, or whatever I have written about in journals or magazines. That is the best that I can offer. Now, Ed Simon is taking up the task of measuring unusual factors in audio design. I wish him well, and I hope that he continues to do so.
Now when it comes to double-blind listening tests similar to ABX, I have put in writing my concerns and criticisms of it, based on my own experience, 31 years ago. Not much has changed since then. Certainly, nobody here has said or discovered anything that changes my opinion about this sort of testing.
I try, in print, to just publish measurements and listening impressions, usually of specific components used in audio. I stand behind what I have measured, whether it be wires, DA, TIM, or whatever I have written about in journals or magazines. That is the best that I can offer. Now, Ed Simon is taking up the task of measuring unusual factors in audio design. I wish him well, and I hope that he continues to do so.
Well, if he didn't before, this thread would have erased any doubt whatsoever.
And wires are just the tip of the audiophile belief iceberg...
very funny aj.I wasn't expecting anything different from you😀 Everyone is free to be selective in what to "understand" and whom to support.The forum has rules and they were violated by gedlees post.
Last edited:
I doubt he broke any forum rules, he simply stated the perfect analogy, which you found discomforting.
But rather than argue diversions, you could present robust evidence of non-LCR cable audibility.
Of course we both know why you (believers), 30 yrs and 13000+ posts later...can't 🙂
No,I can't.I'm not any kind of EE so I couldn't be able to present to anyone any evidence.But at least I'm not vulgar as far as anyone's beliefs or opinions are conserned.The rules are there,and have been violated.Your English is perfect,so,read them.The greatest favor you can do to your friends is to point them their mistakes and not second them.
Using citations from your own source...
This quite clearly applies to sound rooms?
This is literally describing the concept of early reflections in room acoustics.
The window in which sound will begin to shift from a sum to a echo or flutter, reverb that audible in the moments after the haas window is what is primarily responsible for image celerity. This problem is exacerbated if you perceive early reflections prior to the primary wave front.
Wiki's page is lacking on both subjects but regardless it's clear this isn't a subject you've studied much. If you don't understand the application of the haas window in stereo imaging you clearly don't understand the subject.
If you can cite some data to support your case I'd love to see it. Simply quoting links to painfully short pages on wiki and making claims that directly conflict with their content is not much of an argument. I personally think you're trying to cover up for the fact that you don't actually know as much as you claim about the subject. However, as I mentioned if you have some sources you can cite to support your argument that don't directly conflict with the point you're trying to make I'd love to see them.
Why do you and others feel the need to denigrate religion in presenting your position in regard to hearing/not hearing differences in cables?
Last edited:
Everyone can choose to have or not have any religious beliefs.But to equal someone's religious beliefs with cables or anything cheap without any reason,the way you do,it is provocative,and to say the least,pathetic.
+10
How do you generate a high level reflection with a 30-40 foot differential path length in a small room? One not finished in white tile and chrome fixtures.
Please refrain from personal attacks. I wrote the Wikipedia article so I do know that nothing I said conflicts with its content. The topic is complex and you would need to read up on it. A primer is Tooles review that I linked a couple of post ago:
http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurComp...p/Documents/Scientific Publications/13686.pdf
The data you asked for:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
This data is derived from a single reflection in an anechoic room. It doesn't translate into domestic listening spaces but shows that reflection perception is signal dependend.
It's nearly impossible to attenuate first reflections below detection threshold. See Walker's work:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1994-11.pdf
Even if you manage to attenuate first reflections below detection threshold we would need to answer the question "is this the goal?". In his book, Toole makes the case that this might not be true.
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
The numbers cited in that entry are nonsense.
The primary difference between the precedence window and the Haas window are the techniques used to identify the phenomenon. Certainly a major chunk of what underlies these two processes is common, but not necessarily all of it. Some folks lump these two together (along with a number of other binaural phenomenon), but not all of us do.
The data is taken from Blauert "Spatial Hearing". Do you have better data?
We don't know how the underlying process really works. All we know is that our hearing is aware of reflections and capable of deriving information about spaces from them.
Hi,
At least he's done something.
He measured, some others around the world listened and heard the same thing before it even had a name.
That is at the very least intriguing.
From my branch in the forest I listeneded and heard it too.
When asking the industry about it they said it is entirely possible. Just as possible as it was for them to manufacture wire that did not exhibit this behaviour.
So, they know what's causing this and we don't?
None of the above presents any scientific proof so I took it one step further and asked members of the academic world if they'd done any studies along those lines.
They also confirmed this and was told the effect was visible on the electron microscope recordings.
Whether this was audible or not they just didn't know and saw no point in further investigating it as that particular aspect was of no interest to them.
And...there was more, much more.
Much of which confirming that what was heard seemed like electrons and metals interacting. I'm guessing.
No proof but interesting nonetheless.
Sure, without a solid shred of evidence and besides some pointers I past on many years ago, nothing tangible there for those who don't want to accept that there's at least a possibility of audibility there.
That said, most don't even accept the possibility of the audibility of two pieces of wire sounding different let alone directionality.
So, let's develop an acceptable test method to at least establish or not the audiblilty of this and other doubted cable areas and be done with it.
Cheers, 😉
P.S. No audiophile ever asked you for proof so why do you?
At least he's done something.
He measured, some others around the world listened and heard the same thing before it even had a name.
That is at the very least intriguing.
From my branch in the forest I listeneded and heard it too.
When asking the industry about it they said it is entirely possible. Just as possible as it was for them to manufacture wire that did not exhibit this behaviour.
So, they know what's causing this and we don't?
None of the above presents any scientific proof so I took it one step further and asked members of the academic world if they'd done any studies along those lines.
They also confirmed this and was told the effect was visible on the electron microscope recordings.
Whether this was audible or not they just didn't know and saw no point in further investigating it as that particular aspect was of no interest to them.
And...there was more, much more.
Much of which confirming that what was heard seemed like electrons and metals interacting. I'm guessing.
No proof but interesting nonetheless.
Sure, without a solid shred of evidence and besides some pointers I past on many years ago, nothing tangible there for those who don't want to accept that there's at least a possibility of audibility there.
That said, most don't even accept the possibility of the audibility of two pieces of wire sounding different let alone directionality.
So, let's develop an acceptable test method to at least establish or not the audiblilty of this and other doubted cable areas and be done with it.
Cheers, 😉
P.S. No audiophile ever asked you for proof so why do you?
So you do realise that ultimately it is the ears/brain that must be pleased. 😀
I would rather trust my ears than manufacturers specs. 🙂
This link were posted in the past, note the difference when real speakers are used for measurements instead of the usual resistors.
Loudspeakers: Effects of amplifiers and cables - Part 5 | Audio DesignLine
- Status
- Not open for further replies.