I like the sound of my JBL HLS-610s. I've read others like them also. Quite pleasant to listen to. Legend has it JBL discontinued this model because it blew away their newer incarnation, which simply didnt sound as good. (Unsure how the very latest compare...)
Now, here's the "FFT" of one playing some pink noise, measured out in my backyard. Any possible correlation between perception and measured reality? I think so - Out of the pile of commercial bookshelfs I have kickin around, it measures "best". Sounds it too.
Now, here's the "FFT" of one playing some pink noise, measured out in my backyard. Any possible correlation between perception and measured reality? I think so - Out of the pile of commercial bookshelfs I have kickin around, it measures "best". Sounds it too.
Attachments
You will need to attack the null test method, link in post 1.
I have a hard time arguing against, without having to say there is more, something unknown.
That could be the case, the hi-fi audio VR industry is the only electronics industry that is judged by ear and brain.
I have experienced something similar with electronic calibration of the 4 screens I have at home.
Despite the calibration, they all look different, the measurement can not see it, but I can. However, not in a blind test
I'll bet you can see it in single blind test but not in double blind test.However, not in a blind test
Only result of better measurement can explain a shortcoming in a measured quantity, arguments are useless.
I actually equate arguments and i.a. measurement, so we agree.
I have only come to the problem formulation of this question, which I express as: There must be something unknown, something missing in audio theory.
Last edited:
The ability to make judgments is a property of consciousness which is strongly subject-specific (private) and inescapably involves taste, emotion, preconceptions. Consciousness provides the sense of reality, your only reality. Quality can only be subjective. Quality is immeasurable. Consequently, constructed quality templates are irrelevant.
"Quality can only be subjective. Quality is immeasurable. Consequently, constructed quality templates are irrelevant"
No. Qualities can be and are measured. And can, need to be and are specified. It is part of what I am doing for a living. If you are right about how you think about it I get money for nothing. Which is fine with me
No. Qualities can be and are measured. And can, need to be and are specified. It is part of what I am doing for a living. If you are right about how you think about it I get money for nothing. Which is fine with me
That might be true and all... but! The fun starts, when people don't know what they listen to. So in a double-blind test, people - of all types and ages, have agreed on a pretty straight forward sound signature - for around 50 years.
There may be a few people who can hear something special - meaning - being able to - or be cursed by the ability, to hear certain types of distortions better than others. Still - this can be measured. I had a friend, who worked for a company that produced small hearing aids. Even at a young age, he was frightened by how much of a difference his everyday life was, if he chose to wear a set of personally calibrated hearing aids. So maybe if we tested an individuals hearing first. Then it may be easier to predict what kind of sound signature they preferred.
Because you've perceived something in subjective auditions? Well, many people have reported all sorts of perceptions from subjective auditions and some of them even perceived changes when no electronic component was changed. That tells something about subjective auditions.
But the differences can be documented. When someone claims to have "heard" a difference after audio cable was changed, it can be quantified with measurements.
I just saw this post which a link shows a PDF document at the bottom of page on break-in / burn-in / settling-in and aging of cable. When I clicked on that document, it shows a quality and time graph.
Hot spot in resistors are sound liners, I have no doubt about that, but temperature changes are typically slow and can of course change the sound over time as bias/quiescent points move, but it does not fit with a sound that changes instantly when shifting a Component/cable.
Will just add a few classic links on the cable issue:
What a Difference a Wire Makes | Stereophile.com
The Essex Echo 1995: Electrical Signal Propagation & Cable Theory | Stereophile.com
Last edited:
The data is entirely true and correct, just that it shows the break-in of the listener's psyche, rather than the cable ;-)I just saw this post which a link shows a PDF document at the bottom of page on break-in / burn-in / settling-in and aging of cable. When I clicked on that document, it shows a quality and time graph.
Last edited:
Are you a mathematician or do you do all your math with words? No one buys your nonsense. Why dont you tell the EE department what youve discovered, they will have to throw out half there text books, revoke a bunch of Phds and tell all the comunications hardware manufacturers that there equipment no longer works.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.