You seem unhappy with this forum. In case you didn't know, there are many other forums that are different. I would start looking at those if I were you.
Isn't it funny that your only critic of a paper that is "technically wrong anyway you are looking at it" was based on an unfounded premise?
I mean "anyway you are looking at it"........ could it be that you haven't read the publication?
A bit of copy and paste from the psaudio website and an equally unfounded talking point from SY (you know about why the paper allegedly wasn't accepted by the JAES) was all that you had to offer..........
AES E-Library >> Detection threshold for tones above 22 kHz
Interesting. Do we have details about the set-ups used ?
Because I know no single speaker able to reproduce HF frequencies in the same time than bass, i suppose what they call speakers is a multiway speaker assemblies, and the supposed IM is the one produced by the amplifier ?
Last edited:
Of course. The first thing to verify before to accept the conclusions of an experiment is to verify that the conditions of an experiment lead correctly to its conclusions. IE, not other external phenomena can explain the results observed.
So upsampled 320 kbs mp3 to 24/176 is distinguishable from original, big deal. Debates was about whether higher than 16/44k is useless. Topic went around the bush and dies down without producing clear conclusion as usual.
Now this, what is it? Does it matter? Sounds just like an advertisement for a 6 way speakers, probably comes with mashed up phase response as well.
Hehe. Thankfully I don't listen to my widebands at high volume and relieve them of LF duties.
No. By example, are the speakers time aligned with a flat enough group delay?
[edit] Cross post with indra1 answer. ;-)
And if the IM I supposed at work, it questions our thresholds audibility of IM or the poor behavior of the amp used.
Last edited:
How does that relate to IMD? Actually don't answer....see below...
Last edited:
Carry on wasting time T, Jakob will be proud of you
T-E is in an electronics design break, since those lazy forum members don't seem to be in a rush to come up with a PCB layout design, so you could take advantage of his superior knowledge of SQ evaluation. When he's back to electronics, I will myself take advantage of his infinite wisdom and knowledge of CFAs
.
It is a waste of time to verify assertions, whether they go in the direction of what one presumes or against. It seems to me, on the contrary, an essential step.Carry on wasting time T, Jakob will be proud of you
I'm not a blind believer.
This interest-me, I want to ensure those conclusions have some values before to change my mind, while you seems to accept them with no more question because they lead in the direction where you "believe".
10 male and 3 female listeners (age 19 - 26) participated in the experiment, normal hearing, no one could detect single tone frequencies above 22 kHz when presented alone at max 85 dB (SPL).
The tones in the audio band were 2Khz - 18 kHz (see diagramms) and the ultrasonic tones were the so-called target components modulated at a 2Hz rate.
The six loudspeakers were located in front of the participants (2 rows, 3 columns)
In the first experiment the participants must vary the level of the ultrasonic components using a forced up-and-down method.
In the single loudspeaker condition the ultrasonic components were detected at 65.76 dB(SPL), while no one could detect the ultrasonice components in the six speaker condition up to 80 dB(SPL)
In a second experiment a stereophonic two channel set-up was used, where only the right channel carried the ultrasonic components.
Two males and three females participated; the ultrasonic components were detected in the single speaker condition at ~63 dB(SPL) while no one could detect it in the six speaker condition.
The loudspeaker they used was:
VICTOR SX-V05の仕様 ビクター
Last edited:
If you make reference to my:T-E is in an electronics design break, since those lazy forum members don't seem to be in a rush to come up with a PCB layout design, so you could take advantage of his superior knowledge of SQ evaluation. When he's back to electronics, I will myself take advantage of his infinite wisdom and knowledge of CFAs
Pizzicato, a 200W low distortion CFA amplifier
I'm still waiting for argumentative demonstrations of the flaws of this design and positive suggestions on how to improve-it from your part.
But, in your usual way, only despicable attacks against the person.
Not to forget that this is an insult in the direction of Krisfr that is working on the board design and inform-me regularly of his progress.
What also amuses me a lot is that if I am able to successfully design an amplifier, I am sure it would be very fun to see you in the studio behind a mixing console.
You are definitely an obnoxious character aggressive and full of himself. On my side, I pretend nothing, and surely not any "superior knowledge", contrary to you, I just try to do my best and continue to learn.
Last edited:
No, you don't; as anybody could read (assuming there are members willing to waste time on that crap) multiple members (including some very knowledgeable ones) tried to explain the elementary design errors you were making, only to be accused of personal attacks (the same pattern you are using in this thread), or you ran away with their ideas, only to eventually include them as your own. A despicable behaviour, if you ask me.
Enough of this noise, feeding trolls is not my idea of entertainment. Could you please add me back to your ignore list where I belong?
A perfect illustration of what i said (including arguments of authority).
Last edited:
AES convention papers are not considered peer reviewed. Almost anything gets in.
When I discovered AES, a long time ago, participating in a one week HIFI show in Paris, I thought it was a kind of an official organisation governing this activity in U.S.. I quickly realized that it looked more like a gentleman club. Rotary or Lions like ;-)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.