Current output does not imply small signal amplitude, it implies that the signal is output as current variation rather than voltage. Just because there is no, or minimal, voltage response does not in any way mean there is no significant signal, just little or none in the voltage domain.
Also I-V conversion means exactly what the words say: conversion of a signal from a current amplitude variation to a voltage amplitude variation. Amplification in this context is a meaningless term. In the data acquisition and instrumentation industry the 4-20 mA sensor output standard has been around for several decades, along with the accompanying practices of current to voltage conversion. There is nothing nonsensical about it, and it is well established science and engineering practice.
It’s still 5% but only 1 in 10 of them know it 😀
I remember an annoying volley with soundbloke not that long ago, went pretty much the same way from what I recall.....at least he’s consistent.
I remember an annoying volley with soundbloke not that long ago, went pretty much the same way from what I recall.....at least he’s consistent.
Last edited:
The basic means of forming a perception is the same regardless of the number of dimensions we might ascribe to its cause.
This is the vagueness in definitions I alluded to in an earlier post. Given that at low frequencies, stereo produces the exact same pressures at the ears (ignoring the listening environment) for any sound source within the angle subtended by the two (or more) loudspeakers, there exists a real physical source of the illusion: It is not therefore a delusion. At higher frequencies, the illusion breaks down (and even disappears altogether according to comb-filtering action), so I am not sure the argument is valid. But I would suggest that if I actually believed Susanna Hoffs or Andrea Corr were actually stood just a few feet in front of me, then I would be deluded, albeit blissfully so.
Really??? "An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality". Where have I contradicted such a definition? Ignore the colloquial part re a mental disorder as it is just that - an informal (mis)use of a technically well defined word that has been used appropriately.
To my understanding, yes. You can see if others here want to agree with you, I don't think misperceiving a difference between two audio devices necessarily rises to the level required for classification as delusion. I don't think the common meaning of the words used in the definition of the word delusion is intended to mean what you are interpreting it to mean.
That said, I do understand what you are saying. And, I am willing to stand by to see if others here want to say they feel the same way about it as you.
Last edited:
If your references have been studied enough in live performances, including different perspectives of ones own recordings (with familiar equipment) of the same subject then include proffessional takes that are known to be accurate.....how many sources/aspects must be studied before one has a accurate representation of reality?
Last edited:
But you describe a perception that is believed in spite of measures of reality that show otherwise. What other word better than "delusion" do you suggest?
It’s the wrong measurements!
Things need looking at from different angles.....like one maybe where differences could even possibly exist is a good start.
Things need looking at from different angles.....like one maybe where differences could even possibly exist is a good start.
Last edited:
There is an infinite space for one's perceptions whether they are delusional or representative of reality. Each of our perceptions of reality is different. The notion of an "accurate representation" is then misguided because audio reproduction fidelity is inherently subjective. Essentially most of the population have no idea what they are missing because they have never perceived it - much like someone with red-green colour blindness perceives a rainbow differently to one without such a limitation.
Except we’re not discussing people with hearing disorders are we?
Your acting as though it’s impossible for anyone to judge sound......if I go through painstaking steps to make sure what I’m reproducing is reproduced accurately your saying it’s still delusional?
Then tell me how some recording engineers are just plain better at it than others, with no obvious objective reasoning?
Your acting as though it’s impossible for anyone to judge sound......if I go through painstaking steps to make sure what I’m reproducing is reproduced accurately your saying it’s still delusional?
Then tell me how some recording engineers are just plain better at it than others, with no obvious objective reasoning?
Last edited:
You will find my previous posts allude to precisely why and how better measures can (and cannot) identify differences that conventional measures do not. But that does not mean that the absence of a physical cause means that there is some other "ethereal factor" obviates our ability to measure it or, more importantly to this discussion, our capacity for delusion.
We are discussing anyone and everyone. And even those deprived of hearing who maintain a capacity for audio perception!