An audio system that has that "hifi" sound has imperfections, and they are very easy to find, resolving them steadily strips away the artificial quality to the sound - having done this numerous times it tends to gain some sense of "correctness".
If you want a scientific explanation as to why a chain is only as strong as the weakest link, I'm sure someone out there has done a PhD or something ... 🙂
differentiating between a "live sound" versus a reproduced sound,
it doesn't take a genius to do.......
you will know a "live sound" when and where you hear it...
"chicken milk" anyone?
it doesn't take a genius to do.......
you will know a "live sound" when and where you hear it...
"chicken milk" anyone?
I can only assume that by " "hifi" " you mean something different from "hi-fi", which means the closest (practicable) approach to the orginal sound. Of course all sound has imperfections but if you can remove them relatively easily then the original wasn't "hi-fi", although it may have been " "hifi" ". I suspect you are adding "correctness", as a chef adds seasoning, while all the time sincerely believing that you are removing imperfections. You have already admitted that you sometimes prefer your tweaked sound to the original instrument, so we know your goal is not "hi-fi".fas42 said:
Okay so where's your objective measurements? It's been almost a week and all we got from you so far was the subjective review. Everything is "personal experience" unless it has some hard data to back it up.
I wouldn't trust my eyes to set up my monitor for photography, like ears they can be fooled. I'll stick with my colormunki.
TV viewing isn't as critical so eyes can just about pass, but again you cant trust them and to many distractions around unless you have a grey room for doing it in (preferably 18% grey).
TV viewing isn't as critical so eyes can just about pass, but again you cant trust them and to many distractions around unless you have a grey room for doing it in (preferably 18% grey).
Perhaps the ''basic" part is the problem...not just you, but all of us.
I have some of the $200 Bybees that I have been trialling during the past week.
No, if's, but's or maybe's, Bybees do make a subjective difference.
I am not saying that I fully like the difference, but there is a readily audible difference.
Interestingly, when playing back a pink noise CD, the low bass noise attack, sustain and more particularly decay is quite different.
So, a theory question to the gurus present.....can/does an audio noise (pink noise) signal excite transiently noisy behaviour in components ?
And if so, what kinds of noise or noises ?.
Dan.
Last edited:
I am still working out how to measure it.
So far I have just listened with extensive A/B comparisons on music (and system) that I well know.
It may well be that Diffmaker will extract the difference....David, the difference is audible quite clearly, so I expect that the difference signal is not very low in amplitude.
So far, it seems that low level system noise (level and spectrum) has a greater subjective effect than I have to date given credence to.
I am intentionally using a 'rough' system for this part of my subjective testing.
I also fully expect that the difference might reduce when running an inherently lower noise playback system.
Dan.
Last edited:
No we all understand how resistors work, there is nothing else to understand, apart from the scam.
We can hear a difference but cant measure anything🙄
Would you like to buy a very special extremely fine silk suit I have for sale?
Now when I go to RS or Farnell to buy a component I expect some data and explanation as to what I am buying and what effect it would have in my circuit, not some BS marketing rhetoric.
Would you like to buy a very special extremely fine silk suit I have for sale?
Now when I go to RS or Farnell to buy a component I expect some data and explanation as to what I am buying and what effect it would have in my circuit, not some BS marketing rhetoric.
We're not talking about listening, but rather "listening." And reported by someone hatching his own snake oil gadget.
I think that we all understand that the Bybee website is full of dubious info, and for whatever reasons.
That does not discount the fact that they do have a clearly audible influence on a lesser quality system.
From what I understand by prior experimentation with other 'gizmos', the presence of the Bybee influences the T&M system also, hence rendering a null test resultant.
That's why I am saying that I am still working out how to measure their effect.
Dan.
First off your descriptors make no sense applied to noise, if they did it wouldn't be noise.
Second one unlikely, I certainly don't know of any off hand.
To me a little common sense says that there are no components that do any frequency response manipulations sub 100Hz in them, and sorry the reversal of entropy claims will require extraordinary proof. Not kidding, they really are Nobel prize stuff.
Ok, thanks Scott.
In this case I was out in the country, with natural bush sounds as reference.....also lousy radio and phone reception, so presumably relatively low RF junk around also.
In this case (car audio system playing pink noise test CD), low frequency noise in the recording is quite different....ie, without the BQP's the very lows, transiently build and boom, with the BQP's they are matter of fact, and decay naturally.
This is not an eq sounding effect, and lows, mids and highs have better resolution, clarity and stability.
Some of the Elvis recordings even sound decent !.
Dan.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.