I saw the title and thought we'd be talking about "The Black Hole" military surplus place in Los Alamos NM. I am a bit disappointed...
Sheldon
Sheldon
0db on my system is where I do most of my critical listening/testing.
I’m not sure of the input voltage at that volume setting (it’s a integrated/direct Ethernet amp) I’m assuming 0db is straight up no attenuation. 1.4v - 2v input ?
There was no distortion I could detect which tells me it’s a good recording, I didn’t mean there was no difference at lower levels just that it became obvious @ 0db.
And Hans I wouldn’t call it a ‘substantial’ difference.....I had to work at it, and what I call obvious (once I catch it) could be undetectable for some. At least that’s my impression so far
I’m not sure of the input voltage at that volume setting (it’s a integrated/direct Ethernet amp) I’m assuming 0db is straight up no attenuation. 1.4v - 2v input ?
There was no distortion I could detect which tells me it’s a good recording, I didn’t mean there was no difference at lower levels just that it became obvious @ 0db.
And Hans I wouldn’t call it a ‘substantial’ difference.....I had to work at it, and what I call obvious (once I catch it) could be undetectable for some. At least that’s my impression so far
Last edited:
Let's look at this again.
A small pinhole would have a much wider dispersion pattern than a focused nozzle. It would likely be a misty spray at that pressure. Very little power a short distance after exiting the pinhole.
A larger leak would have a narrower pattern but when talking about a human limb, it would tend to knock the arm out of the way rather than penetrate the leather.
I'd be interested in trying the cymbal listening test, but my setup resamples everything to 96K via HW ASRC, wouldn't that skew the results? Also - and I hesitate to even bring this up, but - this kind of thing really needs a proper DBT to be worthwhile, no?
Supposedly for it to matter you need the dbt ......I’m fairly sure I could Not identify them separately (is this one a or b) but flipping back/forth it was there.
As far as resampling goes the difference still should be there?
As far as resampling goes the difference still should be there?
I have no tools to resample to 96/24, but if properly done, I see no reason why this could have any impact.
Hans
The density is higher and that changes the speed of sound which directly influences the size of the box needed.
You might find more info by digging here: DW MANUALS
dave
We have been talking about Fs near CD sampling frequency. While humans seem to have a nominal frequency upper limit of about 20k, but Kuchnur’s (sp?) research shows that the temporal response goes higher in frequency than that Fs.
Information for prospective students
dave
I am not pouring thru manuals i am not interested in reading to find out something i care little about to see if there is a clue in there. If you are, go for it.
dave
dave
Here You are.
I made 3 new versions, resp 18/3.6, 20/4 and 22/4.4.
All files are also in 20Khz Brick Wall filtered version.
They are now 192Khz, 32bit float, instead of the previous 16 bit versions.
And all .wav files are 35msec long, with 10msec lead in and 10msec lead out, because of the Gibbs ringing added to the time domain signal.
Dropbox - Spectra - Simplify your life
Hans
I shared my knowledge (same content as jneutron), if you want to confirm twhat we suggested, or see if there is more, up to you. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink. You will have to drink it in, i am not doing the work for you.
dave
dave
Even Richard manages to show "proper" references, although often he uses cut and paste whilst not making it clear that it's a cut and paste 🙄 Jakob2 always gives perfect references. But if you can't be bothered, no problem.
Sorry, that was a big mistake that I extensively communicated and agreed with Kunchur, but this info keeps popping up all the time.
There was a serious error in his calculation, that effectively made his test members to hear a difference in loudness of 0.7dB instead of hearing a temporal resolution of 5usec.
And 0.7dB is indeed the smallest step in level change we can hear.
A second remark is that temporal resolution is absolutely not the same as the highest frequency we can hear.
It is the smallest noticeable difference in time between two successive wave fronts.
Hans
Indeed. But the ear/brain can discern that time difference, in the frequency domain it is up there. Take out the information the human hearing mechanism uses and a (trained listener at least) will hear the difference.
dave
I might of had it not been a manual published by the manufacturers, but even then proper references are more the norm, why wade through all their blurb?