There may be. The current state of knowledge means they would be mistaken.
Irrelevant. Not eve nsure what point you are trying ot make here.
Why on earth would you do that? Of course the sample needs to be first generation - and there is no sane reason for it not to be. And if it IS 1st Gen at a reasonable resolution the research (not handwaving) tells us we can expect it to be so close to the original that it is unable to be separated in a listening test.
Not all, but a lot, yes.
This really does say a lot about your views and I'm afraid a very stupid thing to say, you propose just blindly believing anything anyone sais without any proof
That having tested some a/d and d/a chains that the performance of a particular, untested unit can be predicted.
The repetition exaggerates the degradation, so its characteristics can be easily perceived - the problem is that the degradation may be of exactly the sort that you're trying to 'measure' in the equipment being modified - how does a listener sensitive to that characteristic differentiate the two, overlapping behaviours?
If you are referring to the point about the reliability of equipment, I'm saying that blind faith in a measurement simply because you respect the name on the front panel is misplaced. Any piece of equipment can be faulty at some point, or there may be a major mistake in the procedure of how the measurement was taken.This really does say a lot about your views and I'm afraid a very stupid thing to say, you propose just blindly believing anything anyone sais without any proof
A series of physics lectures at uni has stuck strongly in my mind throughout these years, and it was about the methodology of measuring. It was based on an experiment to measure black body radiation in some aspect, to an accuracy greater than was currently available - the setting up of the experimental apparatus was 1% of the effort required, and the other 99% was needed to work out compensations, corrections for all the factors that could cause significant errors in the number that was read off.
Sometimes I think the 'magic' of getting a number is so satisfying that the reliability of the figure is not really thought about enough ...
This all stemmed from a point about whether adding something extra into a circuit makes a difference or not. Common sense tells me that it is more likely to make a difference, then not make a difference, so the onus should be on the proving that it doesn't make a difference.
Sorry if this doesn't sound like intelligent engineering ...
Sometimes I think the 'magic' of getting a number is so satisfying that the reliability of the figure is not really thought about enough ...
This was the point of my post last night. Most people seem to get so distracted by this beautiful number that they just completely forget the context in which it was taken and just assume that it paints the whole picture.
"Component a has .01% THD according to this test therefore any contribution to the reproduction of audio is completely undetectable to human ears. Case closed." Meanwhile they are completely ignoring any number of conditions that could cause the device to not perform in the way that it did during this test.
Again, I am not saying these unpleasantries can't be measured. Just that they are not covered by this single measurement that was taken in some other place, under specific conditions, to which they refer to claim the near perfection of the device in question.
I keep hearing about these people, and for whatever reason, never seemed to have met one. Can you give me a specific example?
Then you must be purposely trying to not see it. It happens daily in countless threads.
Just look for this type of post:
"Amplifier in question has .01% THD. If you like another amplifier better than this one, you are either fooling yourself or you like distortion (AKA "coloration")."
Points like this are made daily. If you don't see it, it's because you don't want to, and I am not going to dig around the forum to prove something that you want to close your eyes to.
I give up.
They are away with the Bybees.
And so we don't get further mixed up, my comment is a play on the phrase "away with the fairies"
One last question, to those that seem to be against measurements, how can you design anything without measurement's and metrics to quantify your design, human hearing does not apply as a repeatable measurement whatever you think, though listening tests can be correlated to give some metrics under stable and controlled test conditions with a wide enough sample of participants, but those never materialise here only sighted listening.
They are away with the Bybees.
And so we don't get further mixed up, my comment is a play on the phrase "away with the fairies"
One last question, to those that seem to be against measurements, how can you design anything without measurement's and metrics to quantify your design, human hearing does not apply as a repeatable measurement whatever you think, though listening tests can be correlated to give some metrics under stable and controlled test conditions with a wide enough sample of participants, but those never materialise here only sighted listening.
Last edited:
OK, so basically, "Take my word for it."
It should be easy if there are "countless threads" to come up with one example. I note that your reply to me states a different set of conditions than the one I quoted.
In terms of designing the majority of the circuitry of course metrics, in one form or another, are essential - however, there is frequently that niggling, known unknown , which forms part of the picture, and determines whether the end product succeeds in producing subjectively pleasing sound. Absolutely authorative listening tests would be terribly cumbersome, and a nightmare to monitor for complete confidence in the results - so the reality is that shortcuts are always taken ... and no-one is happy with where we're at ...
, which forms part of the picture, and determines whether the end product succeeds in producing subjectively pleasing sound. Absolutely authorative listening tests would be terribly cumbersome, and a nightmare to monitor for complete confidence in the results - so the reality is that shortcuts are always taken ... and no-one is happy with where we're at ...No only one seams to be unhappy with where we are at....
I do believe there is a lot of the Emperor's new clothes in some circles of audio delusion far to much, it detracts from what are the real issues, me I'm just gonna concentrate on pointing my camera at insects....Its less painful
https://www.flickr.com/photos/england78/13982565181/
I do believe there is a lot of the Emperor's new clothes in some circles of audio delusion far to much, it detracts from what are the real issues, me I'm just gonna concentrate on pointing my camera at insects....Its less painful
https://www.flickr.com/photos/england78/13982565181/
I completely understand this, and all the ways our consciousness gets in the way, but....
Why is it widely accepted in food and chemistry that human taste and smell are better than any machines we have made, and people take professional tasters and sniffers conclusions as fact? I'm sure their personal bias gets in the way just as much as it does for audio.
For food chemists, the goal is NOT reproduction of an original, but instead something that's pleasing to the consumer. In audio, the goal is reproduction of a previous performance.
In food, tasting is done blind. The tasters don't know which of the options have what differences in them. Why isn't this done in audio? Because you're afraid of the results?
In food, tasting is done blind. The tasters don't know which of the options have what differences in them. Why isn't this done in audio? Because you're afraid of the results?
Spoke to three others swearing on the new Bybee bullets, @5K they must be hearing something to plunk down..
Actually, I don't think an exorbitant price is useable as proof of effectiveness.
jn
It is, at least among serious professionals. Don't be misled by the con artists populating the minuscule fashion audio niche.
done all the time matey ....
It is when it's paid after using the product for 30 days.....
- Status
- Not open for further replies.