So try to rephrase your questioning that so often presents as rude carping Chris (as in your above quoted and previous posts) and I will be delighted to help you in your student quest for good sound.
Try to play nice with others and the universe will reward you.
Dan.
Ok, I had listened to your files on my PC, my self powered Kef LS50, My big system. Plus headphones.
May I repeat what I told-you that I was not able to find an obvious differences large enough to take care of them ?
If i had read correctly, all the others , including Richard and its KBL M2 that answered to you in the forum made the same kind of anwer.
With such an unanimity, which prove that even the most flawed "subjectivists" ;-), even with unmatched levels comparisons, are not so prompt to be under self influence, time for you to ask yourself questions about what you are convinced in.
Surprise ? It is exactly the kind of situation where, I, personally, begin to make blind test to figure out if I'm not fooling myself.
I have no right, nor logical argues, to pretend there is no difference. I just say that, if such differences in the nature of the sound exists, they are not so obvious to be in first place on the list of things to improve in my systems. And the list is depressive enough.
Friendly, really, I dislike to be in this position.
Last edited:
Hmm... "earlier"... yes, to both space (position on BM) and therefore time. But I'm still curious what your asking.
Can I restate your question (correct me , please): Is it possible to have an attack envelope, which has a sharp enough rise time such that the HF resonance stimulates HF HCs transiently, yet a small enough rise time to vary the amplitude of the low frequency resonance and therefore a time-varying stimulus of the LF HCs? Whew! ...got a headache constructing that... and probably got it wrong...
First, that's a great question. Second, it is beyond my specific knowledge about the actual function of real ears. Need to look into it. Third, theoretically yes.
Yesterday night, I made myself a listening test of my hearing. Well, I cut at 12kHz.
And, lets say at 10kHz, i feel like i'm still ~linear, and my hearing cuts sharply after this. I'm aged of 73.
After, I remade a test about something I did often in studios: a pass band corrector that makes a bump between 20 and 40 kHz. Every little move on the pot was sensible, even with the poor speakers (no tweeters) of my PC.
I let the human hearing specialists explain that. A question of phases turns or slew rate ?
Take it easy Dan, people brought up on different neighborhood have different choice of vocabulary considered civil, proper, polite or nice, regardless of education.
Yes and no
The sharp enough rise time......yes. The yet small enough rise time.....no, it seems to me the membrane is like a spectrum analyser effectively doing a fourier transform into the frequency domain. In fact it, in conjunction with the hairs is also an ADC?
I ask the question mainly because of this : "Hearing and equipment are different in this case." - your reply to rayma here : https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/the...wtorch-preamplifier-iii-1947.html#post5795884
I was wondering how they are different...re the HF content of the attack "The HF content is largest at discontinuities in the waveform"
@billshurv
You spend hours agonizing over cart response over on the other thread but think its sub-optimal in the bass region. Why are you wasting you time on it - just go over to digital.
As has been discussed on many occasions, the speaker<>room interaction has by far the largest effect on perceived LF response and performance.
Vinyl may not be 'flat' (cart response, arm resonances etc) but at the systems level 'big scheme of things' nothing is perfect in a domestic listening environment. On that score, vinyl does a remarkable job of creating a realistic listening experience and the bass is good. Good luck if you can hear 2% distortion at LF.
You make it sound as if bass on vinyl is unlistenable. If you are finding your bass on vinyl is not up to scratch, then fix your system.
(If CCC at 8Hz important on pipe organ music, then I suggest you move into a listening space that can accommodate those wavelengths)
You spend hours agonizing over cart response over on the other thread but think its sub-optimal in the bass region. Why are you wasting you time on it - just go over to digital.
As has been discussed on many occasions, the speaker<>room interaction has by far the largest effect on perceived LF response and performance.
Vinyl may not be 'flat' (cart response, arm resonances etc) but at the systems level 'big scheme of things' nothing is perfect in a domestic listening environment. On that score, vinyl does a remarkable job of creating a realistic listening experience and the bass is good. Good luck if you can hear 2% distortion at LF.
You make it sound as if bass on vinyl is unlistenable. If you are finding your bass on vinyl is not up to scratch, then fix your system.
(If CCC at 8Hz important on pipe organ music, then I suggest you move into a listening space that can accommodate those wavelengths)
You have posted over 1200 times in 18 months, perhaps you should try to to find something better to do in what time you have left.
It just seems so wasteful.
Because it's fun to experiment with these things. I make no claims of superiority just that a man needs a hobby this is as good a one as ever. I have 10x the number of digital recordings as analog and enjoy music from both sources.
Yes but wrt to vinyl the discussion is more over how easily the ear is fooled rather than great bass.
Back to ear being easily fooled. Vinyl is mono below 150Hz
Where did I say that? Hint, I didn't.
Nope don't need anything below 16Hz. My headphones are flat to 10Hz though.
Do not stress, this is informal but still provides data, thankyou for your time and participation.
Ok, over the four folders I am surprised that you do not detect differences between the 01>02 files which is comparing Original File and Loopback recorded file.
It seems to me odd that you guys are not detecting this difference when others reliably do so.
My sister who is the female vocalist on the Jump demo selected the 03 version as her favourite after auditioning in random order 15 seconds of each of the four versions over mobile telephone.
A day later after downloading the files she stated that she liked the 03 - M1 version best (without knowing that she selected this version already the day before) when played on her portable good quality BT speaker.
My housemate readily hears the four versions and has the same opinions/preferences as I do.
So that's at least three ordinary listeners who do hear differences well enough to indicate preferences on various systems.
So we have you and Richard who admit to having listened, who else ?.
Dan.
That's it. Mobile phones with grossly limited frequency rage and imperfect digital audio chain tend to emphasize differences you would not hear from the high quality wide freq. range system, even worse they sometimes create their own differences based on improper playback. I have the same experience from my tests, some listeners scored high through mobile phone audio and were unable to tell the difference on a good system. I think that mobile imperfections are not much interesting for many of us.
I did, I admit I don't listen to pop music so it was difficult. I could try again, but I asked how do they get an almost flat spectral density? Virtually no natural music behaves like that, it looked like one of the tricks they use to get commercials to sound louder than the program.
There was certainly no dramatic difference, and as I said the coaching ruins any chance of the "data" being of any use. In the end it divides folks into two posses.
Last edited:
I hear that mostly from rockers...well pop guys never have such a divisive stance and i wonder why...but its clear that each of the teams believe the others are listening mostly to noise...
I had a similar argument with a former girlfriend and in the end i chose real random noise
Hey Dan, you must be pulling our legs. "ORIG" file and "ORIG 16bit" file are identical and none of them is 24bit, though "ORIG" file pretends to be 24bit by coding. However levels are 16bit resolution. The files differ in 1bit (dithering?) noise. So any audible difference between these two is a wrong playback system.
Attachments
The first test here is to screen out those who cannot hear difference between Original file and Loopback recording of the same file.
The 'coaching' is to highlight aspects of the differences that may go unnoticed initially, and is useful to reduce false negatives.
This coaching does not ruin the experiment because 02>03, 02>04 and 03>04 differences are the actual test, with 01>02 the qualifier as stated.
False positives at this time are not a concern as they will be weeded out later.
The soundcard is old school and has -80dB noise floor....it can't be that hard to pick the differences can it, really ?.
So, negative result means 1 - the listener is not experienced enough to understand/note the differences (novice level), 2 - the replay system is not good enough (too noisy) or, 3 - the listeners hearing is not good enough (damaged).
The differences between 01>02 files are about phases and timing, not frequency response.
The Jump track is full on pop/top 40, sorry about that, but there are other folders of different stuff including a Test Dept track I processed for you and Bonsai and a glorious mono 1938 Benny Goodman recording.for mr joplin.
Dreamth mentioned Lana Del Ray so I got hold of and processed that too.
All four folders have something to offer...the Benny Goodman stuff is good because it is a two channel mono recording so depth/timing information is mostly the only thing to listen for and the spoken word excerpts are especially useful imho.
The Lana Del Ray track is good to illustrate how small mastering changes can make quite large changes to expression and nuance in replay.
The Test Dept track is fun to crank up and shake the walls.....02 track improved LR coherence makes big changes to sense of power in the bass and sense of clarity and stability in the highs.
Dan.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.