As said before, we are discussing the whole chain......
That sort of anecedotical event was what i meant in my post:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/lounge/204456-you-really-interested-hi-fi-64.html#post4947046
"There is a lot of anecdotical material from the past, even including listeners impression that a recorded voice was indistinguishable from the real event when played back from an Edison cylinder, which obviously does not really reflect what we think about "high fidelity".
Beside Olson´s and Brigg´s public demonstrations i remember having read that Klipsch did something similiar (all in the 1950s) and at trade show(s) in the 80s/90s in germany even Cabasse demonstrated live vs reproduced , but we should not confuse this sort of demontration with scientific studies.
It doesn't help your credibility when you use the word "exactly" on your interpretation of someone's statement and "might" on your countering point, all in the same paragraph.
I am quite confident that you´ll notice, after one (or more) rereads of my post, the errors in your comment.
No, you posted an excuse why you "didn´t notice" on post #1184.
You didn't have info on "When, where and who's done those experiments" offhand when you wrote"those experiment were commonly done with artificial stimuli". In other words, your reply shows that you didn't know what you were writing about.
More like audiophool jungle where myth is touted as facts. You need a compass to find your way out. In this case, the compass is textbook on electronic sound reproduction technology.
Of course, not all of us do, but it´s the topic.
Related question is, if the reference point to compare should be the "real thing" in front of any microphone or a recording which was released after the "real thing" has happen.
But as it has to be evaluated by someone with some gear in an environment, we surely have to include the whole chain.
You stated, " - were not the foundation of audio development.". I asked you which audio development.
When DF96 brought up "comparing real with reproduced" on post #948, you replied "And still there is no evidence provided that those experiments were done." on post #1182. Comparing real with reproduced were done multiple times. Having trouble with English?
See above.I am quite confident that you´ll notice, after one (or more) rereads of my post, the errors in your comment.
Thank you for your time here. What I wrote to you yesterday gave me pause to think again about the whole experience, which was several months ago. Instead of having 2 amplifiers with different resistors I think we really had just one amplifier and were in the process of finding the correct value for that one resistor position.
I tend to think that it is not common to have a resistor position be so sensitive to the frequency response of the amp output, and this must be unique to the circuitry used. A small change in resistor value from 270R to 300R had a noticeable difference. While that is an 11% difference, it's a small difference in actual value. We found another 11% difference, to 330R to give the best sound balance with a common value resistor. Probably 324R would have been ideal.
I'm thinking that there is likely a better way to do all this, and will look into that.
As I long suspected, your only interest has been to criticize and ridicule. Do you really think I don't know what you mention in your second paragraph?
With regard to changes in frequency response, more bass and more treble tend to sound good at first, especially at low listening volumes. Therefore, when frequency response is involved, its pretty easy and probably wise to check with a sound card and some analysis software to see if frequency response if it is flat or if there is some problem.
For other kinds of sound differences, such as small changes in distortion that may seem to sound better, what I usually do is check at matched perceived loudness levels, then turn down volume of the seeming better sounding version to see if it still sounds better when at slightly lower volume. That can give you some idea if the change is really a good one, and give you an idea, in terms of likability, how it compares to the likability of a loudness difference. Sort of a way to perceptually calibrate, or reference to, the value given by the change.
Yes, this is certainly an easier way and will be looked in to for future use.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt before passing judgement but to no avail. You are just as I initially suspected, just another one of those spreading audiophile myth. There are too many of those online already. Adding more to the list doesn't help the audio community and it's time such actions are called out for what they are.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt before passing judgement but to no avail. You are just as I initially suspected, just another one of those spreading audiophile myth. There are too many of those online already. Adding more to the list doesn't help the audio community and it's time such actions are called out for what they are.
Oh my goodness, shame on me.
Good luck with your crusade.
I see what is going on, correct me if I'm wrong.
Back when amplifiers had tone controls, the front end circuit was designed so that the response was flat when the pots were at 12 o'clock. Now amps have no tone controls and come set with a flat freq. response.
For whatever reason you feel the need to make a tonal adjustment to the sound by swapping out a few resistors in the front end?
I know you don't mean what you say, as evidenced by your own track record.
In olden days it was a slide rule. Then a calculator. Now a simulation. The effect of resistor value on frequency response should not be difficult to calculate. Of course, if it is open loop response which is being altered then there is an extra step to get closed loop response and stability could be an issue too. All part of circuit design.stvnharr said:
A practical problem with including the whole chain is that we as music consumers only have control over our playback systems. Maybe playback systems should be designed with low enough distortion and other parameters so that whole-chain-requirements are at least minimally met, but after that there is no reason not go for better reproduction system performance. And, content providers may opt to go for better-than-minimal whole-chain-requirement specifications as well.
What do you mean "maybe"? It already is except for speakers and room acoustics.
What for? Oh, yeah, the sales pitch.
It seems to be your take on "alternative facts".
Your remark was irrelevant to the topic at hand then and it is still yet....
You should read the books. At the end you´ll know that it were/are hundreds of experiments.
Btw, what you´ve wrote is a classical "non sequitur", so i add a third book to the short list; reading that too will help you:
Partick Hurley; A Concise Introduction to Logic.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.