So everyone is to revert to the toole version of good enough ?
Is this a audio dictatorship of which I'm unaware?
Mark, just get over to Richard's and listen. As Heyser said: "If any 2 people can hear a difference, then it is real!" In fact, I am inclined just to believe Richard, when he says that he can hear a difference in this case.
This is how improvements in audio quality are made, everybody! One step at a time, trying something novel. I have been trying to put that fact out here for the last dozen years or more. That's where improvements in amp slew rate, caps, diodes, etc have come from. One at a time.
This is how improvements in audio quality are made, everybody! One step at a time, trying something novel. I have been trying to put that fact out here for the last dozen years or more. That's where improvements in amp slew rate, caps, diodes, etc have come from. One at a time.
No, I've no idea either, I thought you might since you can tell a 50hz recording from a 60hz recording?
No, where did you get that idea? It's just that he is qualified in the relevant subjects, studied and done tests and published results in a well received book to be tried and verified by others.
DF96,
That you accept my apology is much appreciated - thank you.
I didn’t quite understand at first where you were coming from, but considering the level of wazzak-bizarro-magical thinking to be found here, I can appreciate that you have a sharp tongue on occasion, which over time has become quite refreshing.
So I have decided that when you talk, I listen, and if you want to comment or pull me up on anything what I might say, then go ahead, I am good with that.
Like yourself, I am my own man, and don’t take sides. I prefer the overview, and although my intellect functions in a way that enables me to make connections between the wildest snippets of facts and information, I am most definitely rooted in a tangible consensus of reality.
Game on DF96 - the odds are with you.
ToS
Nope for most rooms we "hear through the room" - again it's a bit of knowledge about auditory perception & how it works that shows this - our internal model adjusts to the reverb & reflections in the room as long as they are reasonable & fixed i.e they don't keep changing - much like we hear through the hiss of analog - again, as long as it is steady - start fluctuating. In fact we categorise the audio character of the room within a short time of first hearing sounds in it & moving around it or moving our heads
Speaker distortion is different in nature to distortion from electronics
I certainly am not up to speed in audio but current software technology offers a variety of algorithms to generate different sets of interpolated data. My foobar installation has a choice of PPHS, SoX, SSRC X and SSRC DSP plugins to resample an audio stream, each produce slight but audible difference for unlucky old me. Not a simple case of rounding error I don't think. Compared to the original 16/44k all of them produce better overall sounding upsampled 24/96k stream, enough to justify me using them. It is possible that all of them are crap per your definition and I don't mind using any crap to enjoy better entertainment quality.
I find the statement is probably incorrect.
Last edited:
It just gets tiring being told what’s ‘good enough’ , or ‘it measures lower than perceptible to most’ , or ‘it must be broken’, or ‘ the great and powerful fubar has spoken; pay no attention to the man behind the curtains’, or..........🙄
Don't read his book then 🙂
I know what you mean, it doesn't mean the statement is wrong though, I have read Linkwitz
I asked if your real name is Merrill Wettasinghe (read post #23882 again). Is it?
In your opinion, of course.
What's wrong with audio ABX?
Quote or link of that anywhere?
You must be his competitor.
With peeking or without peeking?
I'm talking about an audio circuit that has RF noise riding along with the signal which will cause distortion & is not benign. Maybe his explanation about PS power being used by various chips processing RF signal is not on the button? Let's see if his mods work in practice & then see what the theory behind it is.
It's not a fact - it's a model for signal analysis. Sound is a pressure wave so let's get that straight for a start
Sinewave testing is useful for rudimentary checking/analysis of circuit behavior but I would hope that this good enough is not 'good enough' for real audio systems that deliver what people superior sound.
Well then show us the measurements that fully characterise a system, not a device in the system when handling sine wave & handling music signal & show us the same set of measurements for the same system handling music signal. You can then show us "Much of the circuit behaves in exactly the same way" That would be interesting. Otherwise you expect us to just believe your claim without backing it up
You are another one that isn't interested in learning anything about auditory perception & so, in ignorance, you make statements like this
You can live with your ignorance if you like - I can't make you learn but it is symptomatic of a core group
Post #23970. Thanks Howie, a very interesting read and quite timely. I just had someone over here auditioning my DIY phono preamp and his cell phone created havoc!
Just listen folks! Keep track of what you are listening to, or rely on your previous memory of what it was before this change. In any case, you can trust yourself. That's all that counts, anyway.
Now, there are some 'scams' out there, but I find them relatively rare. One 'scam' is an outrageous markup for the dealers on certain brands of quality audio cable. I have heard up to 90%. This is so the dealer can make a big profit on the cables, and even be in a position to 'discount' them to make a final sale. I do not approve of this, never have. The usual mark-up for dealers is 40% for normal products, and perhaps somewhat more for accessories, like cable. More is just a scam.
Now, there are some 'scams' out there, but I find them relatively rare. One 'scam' is an outrageous markup for the dealers on certain brands of quality audio cable. I have heard up to 90%. This is so the dealer can make a big profit on the cables, and even be in a position to 'discount' them to make a final sale. I do not approve of this, never have. The usual mark-up for dealers is 40% for normal products, and perhaps somewhat more for accessories, like cable. More is just a scam.
That is incorrect, you cannot choose the hearing endpoint to your convenience. One could argue that sound is the basilar membrane motion causing depolarization of the hair cells.
Thank you, but I’ll leave that to you, the expert.
The problem is that different is often perceived as better, for a while, one can continually upgrade one's system by switching in and out the same difference periodically 😉
I will make a stand here. I do not believe that double blind testing works for electronics. Maybe for speakers, but I disagree with the HK 'researchers' that your ears lie to you. They are the ONLY thing that really matters!
Well in that case we’ve struck on perpetual betterness.......messing with it is half the fun is it not? 😛
No, you are mixing up the reality of what sound is in physics, compression & rarefaction pressure waves with the mechanisms involved in the perception of sound.
Does a speaker output sinewaves? Does any auditory objects? What impinges on the eardrum is not a sinewave. Confusing a useful model with reality, as DF96 did & calling it a fact is blatantly incorrect
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.