I agree to this. At least when it comes to the part of the sound reproduction system where the (music) information is representation in an electrical format , be it analog or digital, stored or in transit. What is lacking to progress the art is where the information goes form mechanical to electrical and vice versa - that is the sound pressure recording and generation phases. Maybe not in so much that this cant be made with reasonable absence of distorsion (level, phase and absence of over and under-tones/IM) but rather the aspect of directivity and direction.
I dont think the reason for me not being properly fooled is due to 0,02 % THD but rather, it's the detection of reflections and direction of these, both at recording as well as reproduction, that give it away. In here lies the challenge and it is here that a new "HiFi norm" needs to specify the circumstances of how to record and replay in order to be properly fooled. The stuff in between is easy and nowadays well provided for.
//
"No conflict" is imo something different. I only questioned that it is self-explanatory (just by the meaning of word) i.e. that "high fidelity" means "more to the real thing" to a majority of people. I think this thread gives some reason to question the "self explanatory" part, but due to the interests might be a distorted version. So maybe - asking just other people, or linguists would show - you are right.
My point right from the beginning was, that these experiments - comparing real with reproduced - were not the foundation of audio development.
And still there is no evidence provided that those experiments were done. As a scientist you know what it means if you can´t provide evidence for such a basic assertion.
That misses the reason for our discussion and narrows the topic (i think for the first time?) to electrical performance, while we were in fact discussing the whole chain including room and listener. See my examples for more or less apparent source width, envelopement or precision of stereo image.
I did mention (wasn´t it in my last post) that you insisted a listener choosing from preference were not seeking for "high fidelity" although the poster already wrote that is was more "high fidelity" to him.
You were unfortunately a bit meandering in your definition of "high fidelity" as it was sometimes "indistinguishable" and sometimes "more of the real thing" as a compromise.
If it is more of a compromise then a "preference part" is included by definition.
If it is "indistinguishable from the real thing" then there would be - in the contrary of further tests that you demanded or at least feel to be necessary - only need for further tests if human listening capabilities were enhanced.
Everything else would have to admit that the "high fidelity" of the majority is only exactly that which means there are a lot of people that would need much less than that and of course a lot of people (or at least some) that would need much more and therefore - as there any system might diverge in different dimensions - includes a preference part, because performance overall might be similar or even equal but different in detail.
I would have thought this was normal, but you have the advantage of knowing what this resistor did in the circuit and how much you changed the value. Certainly changing the bias of a stage from wrong to right will have an effect on sound quality. A small increase in gain may be misheard as an increase in quality. Almost any change in frequency response will be audible.stvnharr said:
If you filled in some of the details for us we may join you in your surprise, or we may conclude that what you heard was exactly what we would expect.
Sadly, most people who believe that they are 'transcending' test and measurement (i.e. normal engineering design techniques) are in fact falling significantly short of these. They diss that which they do not understand.morinix said:
I was using a noun as an adjective. This is a normal technique of English, and presumably other languages too. Sorry if this confused you. As you say, audiophiles like listening to reproduced music; sadly, some of them prefer this to real music. This distinguishes them from hi-fi enthusiasts (an old-fashioned term, I know), who always prefer real music when they can get it.Johhny2Bad said:
OK. Yes, it is the transducers and their use which are the weak link. Hence it is strange when people get worked up about minor flaws, real or merely imagined, in the electronics and the cables.TNT said:
You joined the discussion a bit late and therefore imo didn´t notice that we were discussing the whole chain including loudspeakers, room and listener.
So it doesn´t matter if you believe that certain parts of the reproduction system can or can not be the reason for a specific effect it just matters that this sort of effect occurs.
A good basis for understanding in general gives:
Fastl/Zwicker; Psychoacoustics - Facts and models
And for the reproduction side:
Floyd Toole; Sound reproduction
Both include comprehensive reference lists for further examination.
So you believe that things like 20Hz-20kHz bandwidth are the result of some engineers sitting in a smoke-filled room and dreaming up some numbers from thin air? Or playing some music through a system and adjusting it until it sounded 'nice'?Jakob2 said:
You may also be confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence; scientists understand this distinction. The fact that I can't provide a citation is not evidence that the tests never took place.
Afair it started with Oohashi et al. doing experiments including Pet scans and psychoacoustic evaluation as well. (Hypersonic Brain Effect)
Quite special music was used but the participants, while not detecting the high frequency spectrum above 20 kHz when presented alone, did enjoy the music including the high frequency spectrum more .
There were several follow-up studies done, the most recent one afair from 2014 or 2015.
And of course there was much debate about the validity of Oohashi´s studies and conclusions.
Come on DF96, you asserted that these requirements (for example 20 - 20 kHz bandwidth) were based on comparisons of the "real thing" with reproduction of the "real thing" and i insisted several times that these experiments were done with comparisions of limited stimuli and unlimited stimuli (wrt to the parameter under examination) and quite often the stimuli weren´t even music.
Maybe you could have a look at the two books i mentioned in my answer to Evenharmonics, afterwards you´ll know much better about the studies done in the audio field.
Please just reread what i´ve written.
If you present something as a fact you should be able to provide evidence. If it is more a hypothesis about what you think took place in the past, then you should present it as such.
And if you want, i dig deeper in my archive and provide a citation about Olson´s experiments which provided the basis for the bandwidth enhancement, but weren´t a comparison between "life" vs "reproduction".
I was not aware that the discussion about audiophiles was already vivid in the 1950´s (or even earlier?) but in the Hartley´s book that you mentioned he wrote already about the distinction between musik lovers seeking for high fidelity and audiophiles seeking for sound effects (i.e. more enhanced than in reality).
Gnobuddy already mentioned that Stokowski preferred already in the 1930´s to use the controls for enhancement of dynamic. (Afair Leopold Stokowski Legacy contains some photographs where Stokowski was sitting at the control while Fletcher looking a bit concerned)
Perhaps you are now failing to distinguish between formal discussions (in person or in writing) of a learned society, and informal discussions on a forum (which are more like a normal conversation). I said what I believe to be true. You have said what you believe to be true. Can we leave it at that? I am tired of this argumentativeness. Perhaps it is true, as has been alleged, that commercial considerations play a role in this?Jakob2 said:
You wrote in the past about your attitude as a scientist and the need to educate others in forums like this, did i take it too serious?
If so, my apoligies for being too persistent.
You mean, providing speculations instead of evidence is less tiresome after all?
The ITU had of course their own set of requirements (carefully avoiding the phrase "high fidelity" and using "high quality" instead ) for the whole broadcasting chain, which was pubished as ITU-R BS.644-1 :
https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.644/en
It was further supplemented in various other publications that the elements of the chain must comply to much stricter specifications as the errors might be additive.
@ stvnharr,
there is no need for "ABX" as it is just a specific protocol.
A/B for example is fine too, provided that there was sufficient control wrt the usual confounders.
) for the whole broadcasting chain, which was pubished as ITU-R BS.644-1 :https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.644/en
It was further supplemented in various other publications that the elements of the chain must comply to much stricter specifications as the errors might be additive.
@ stvnharr,
there is no need for "ABX" as it is just a specific protocol.
A/B for example is fine too, provided that there was sufficient control wrt the usual confounders.
Last edited:
I belive that I do hear differences between D/A converters and power amplifiers etc. But its kind of relative small details in the big fooling business. So they are not completely irrelevant.
As recordings are hard to effect, the two channel paradigm reign and WAF rules the homes - thats whats left to worry about
//
Troll, my aarse, this is a Forum, a place of debate, look it up.
Back when I became interested in audio there were any number of hifi magazines and whenever they previewed amplifiers they were also Lab tested for distortion etc. Features offered were also discussed, but I cannot ever remember there being a best sounding amplifier, possibly because amplifiers should just amplify. Now of course, with the internet, it looks to have all changed?
As I mentioned before, if forums had a bullsshit filter there would be very little to read.
Debating is about winning an argument, not about finding truth. Debating isn't even about arguing a position that one believes to be true.
About debating: HOW TO DEBATE
It's about being clever, putting opponents at a disadvantage, and assembling a coherent, comfirmative argument.
Confirmation bias is leveraged in order to win: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Don't know about everybody else, but I don't come here for debate. Science and engineering are supposed to be about get at facts and truth.
IMHO, subject matter most suitable for "debate" are those specifically banned from the forum.
About debating: HOW TO DEBATE
It's about being clever, putting opponents at a disadvantage, and assembling a coherent, comfirmative argument.
Confirmation bias is leveraged in order to win: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Don't know about everybody else, but I don't come here for debate. Science and engineering are supposed to be about get at facts and truth.
IMHO, subject matter most suitable for "debate" are those specifically banned from the forum.
I've heard others doing such thing too. The devil is in the detail, which brings up a question, how closely did you match and what did you use for doing it? I'm asking because it's important.
There are audio aspect in industrial equipment development, there are audio aspect in sound reproduction, there are audio aspect in room treatments...etc. Which audio development are you referring to?
In 1918 and in 1960's.
It doesn't help your credibility when you use the word "exactly" on your interpretation of someone's statement and "might" on your countering point, all in the same paragraph.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.