I’ve always wanted to do that. Would be really cool set up behind a projection screen with speaker placement behind and aligned to each instrument (video would have to be basically fixed angle) or maybe even holograms in the future!
Wouldn’t be that hard to do with enough motivation.
Edit......would involve setting the stage for each performance, much like reality!
Last edited:
Are you trying to define music? No need, any sound can be music to your ears, although that does appear to imply agreeability, something I don't consider a prerequisite. 😉
As a sound engineer, I have sought, all my life, to find objective means of judging the quality of my work. We know all too well, and often painfully, by listening to a mix later in time, how fluctuating and misleading our perceptions are.
I never succeeded. (Vu meters, peak meters, spectrum analysers and then ?)
However I did all that i was able on it, I swear, I trained in electronics and electro-acoustics more than most of my colleagues.
When I hear the quality of the work of some, more talented than me, who say ******** every time they talk about technique, I always felt like a little boy.
(Hoping they would feel the same thing while listening to some of mine ;-)
Furthermore, as the performance of my hearing system deteriorated with age, the quality of my work improved with experience.
That not to talk about me, but to explain why objectivists and subjectivists will NEVER agree. One thing i discovered in this forum is that "objectivists" are convinced that they own the truth. Often in a very aggressive way. Not the contrary. Why ?
I never succeeded. (Vu meters, peak meters, spectrum analysers and then ?)
However I did all that i was able on it, I swear, I trained in electronics and electro-acoustics more than most of my colleagues.
When I hear the quality of the work of some, more talented than me, who say ******** every time they talk about technique, I always felt like a little boy.
(Hoping they would feel the same thing while listening to some of mine ;-)
Furthermore, as the performance of my hearing system deteriorated with age, the quality of my work improved with experience.
That not to talk about me, but to explain why objectivists and subjectivists will NEVER agree. One thing i discovered in this forum is that "objectivists" are convinced that they own the truth. Often in a very aggressive way. Not the contrary. Why ?
Definitely not (omho).
Music, like all the arts, involves a human process of exchanging informations, a language, and an intention to share emotions through a common prism.
The sound of the wind, a stream, the sea, the song of birds, insects can be pleasant, it is not (for us) music.
But, indeed, restructuring some of their aspects in a creative process will allow-us to share the feelings they can provide us on a sunny afternoon. Very personal point of view, of course.
It is very surprising how, listening to old tune from our young years, we can meet ourselves in the exact same mood we were at this time. (If this tune has not been re-mixed/digitized with low distortion gears, talking about hifi ;-)
Some of us concentrate on the ways of carrying the information as accurately as possible, some others consider this information as a simple media, and concentrate more on the emotions this information carries.
Last edited:
I am proud to not have to suffer such a rigid definition. Music is where you find it for me.
As I've used the term "multidimensional" in this context (of perception/experience) numerous times before, I'd assume that you might be asking for something different more specific to the recent posts?
Generally the term "multidimensional" in this context means that differences exist in multiple parameters leading to different percepted impressions in different categories.
You attached the same photo multiple times over the years; it is intended only to show off and impress the n00bs. In fact, it shows only the 3rd harmonic of a 1KHz 2.13dBm (1Veff) low distortion sine. The -140dB value for the 3rd harmonic is nothing really special, everybody and their mothers with some clues of generating low distortion signals knows that the problem is in the 2nd harmonic.
To add insult to injury, T-E claims -160dB THD+N (yes, such an animal exist, it’s a button up on the 7722A panel). Now show a reliable THD+N measurement at -160dB, even in loopback. Guess what, it’s not possible, not with the 7722A, not with 725D, not with the latest Audio Precision. Your dick swinging failed one more time.
Keep trying as you only look worse for it. Getting even further into strange thinking.
The test equipment can measure any of the first 5 harmonics to -140. That I have a generator that is that good is also part of the photo. Any one can look up any of this gear specs. The 725D/QA401 can measure to -160 with accuracy. Except the generators which some are custom and special. And, some harmonic suppression with passive filters. Have you seen or measured what Victor's single freq gen can do? It is the generators which pose a possible limit to -160 and not the analyzer.
If in actual practice TE amp comes close to the limits of what I can measure, it will be quite excellent to be sure.
Get over yourself, dude.
For other's benefit, here is a fairly clean generator I have that without doing any further Harm atten..... not Victors - Notice the test gear notch at -170. Hmmm? The result of triple high Q notch filters. Better than I recalled at -160dB re 1v. Top (0) is -100dbv.
If I find an 'old' shot of Victors I will put it up here, too.
-145dbv 2H and -154dbv 3H To get this source to -160 I use a tunable passive/active notch filter. I only need a notch depth of 20+ db at the harmonic freq of interest.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Jakob, my concepts and preconceptions are amalgamated into one solid yet constantly wriggling ball. It must be either one of them. The point I wanted to bring across in this indirect way, is that it serves the interests of much of the audio press to keep the mystique alive. And I am sure Dr. Jim Austin stands squarely behind every word he writes.
I do agree with you and Austin that long term listening is necessary to assess the quality and character of an audio component. This listening starts at birth and gets more and more attuned to environmental sounds in order to distinguish discriminating elements in this constant cacaphony. It is a process of training and learning. Listening to audio equipment requires a specific kind of such in order to develop analytical skills, and some are better at it than others.
Once the skill is aquired to, for example, pick up on a certain kind of distortion, which might take some time, not much time is required to apply it to a specific situation. In other words, trained listeners can apply their skills in an ABX test measured in hours. Obviously, subjects should get all the time they need to take decisions.
It has never happened to me that I heard something amiss which I could not subsequently relate to measurements. The other way around, tollerances are huge. Of course, it is mandatory to evaluate any audio component by using it in the way it is intended. Issues may be identified, perhaps after some delay. But there will always be a measurement that can provide data on what the issue actually is. If issues crop up at this stage, the measurements were not done right or incomplete.
Coincidentally I have just re-read this Doppler Distortion in loudspeakers
It's an interesting article. Relevant to your post, this is from his paper
"This is not merely a theoretical discussion of the effect, but contains the unadulterated results of the test procedure described. At the risk of offending those who believe that there are things in audio that no instrument other than well trained ears can detect, this is proof that a properly designed test method can be devised, and a theory thus proven or disproved."
What a desperate hodge podge of technical information!
No, the 725D cannot measure -160dB accurately. Do yourself a favor and read the spec: 2Hz to 2KHz balanced, the analyzer residual distortion is -115dB.
http://www.m80records.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ShibaSoku_AD725D.pdf
Neither can the QA401, as much as no sound card chips based device can. The root cause is the audio grade ADC, which are in general, currently not even at -120dB, plus other issues related to noise. The QA401 uses the AK5397 ADC (outdated, anyway) which is specified at THD+N=-108dB, some 40dB shorter than your claim.
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1631/5609/files/QA401_Product_Sheet_RevD.pdf?85
https://www.akm.com/content/dam/doc.../audio-adc/ak5397eq/ak5397eq-en-datasheet.pdf
Neither can the latest AP55X: the latest and fanciest Audio Precision machine has a nominal residual THD+N (both on generator and analyzer sides) of -117dB and typical -120dB. A far cry from -160dB
APx555 Audio Analyzer - Audio Precision(C)
ahahaha what a crazy thinking. yes it can and does. Some day I will show you how those two instruments are used together. i have shown this setup on the equipment forum long ago. You are wasting everyones time.
THx-RNMarsh
Here s the same gen measuring its 2H BTW
-140 is as low as the 7722A will measure.
Last edited:
Right, such as expectation bias.
Marketing research, such as how to combat double blind test in order to make hi-end audio electronics more desirable.
In your subjective view, ""objectivists" are convinced that they own the truth". That's where your problem is. You haven't verified it and yet you've drawn a conclusion.
Mr. Marsh I could ask why you are wasting your time with -140dB vs -150dB measurements. Unless of course you have conducted controlled DBT's that show it matters. Or maybe the random sighted data that flows in from the web is compelling evidence.
A cathode follower, maybe.
And he was a music lover: "If I were not a physicist, I would probably be a musician. I often think in music. I live my daydreams in music. I see my life in terms of music... I get most joy in life out of music." and played the violin.
How am I supposed to know which way non-humans perceive anything? 🙂
Otoh the term "multidimensional" is also used when for example tasting something complex or comparing two tastes that differ in more than one perceptable dimension (means in different parameters).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.