As for the earlier question I asked you on post #1197 about that important level matching aspect?
I know all about the importance of level matching in comparisons and this was accounted for in what I did. There is nothing more to be written.
Despite multiple times I've asked you how you did it, your persistence in hiding it is quite telling of the flaw in your comparison method.
Just so you know, many have done the comparison the way you've done and found same kind of results. Then when some of them were subjected to precisely level matched blind listening comparison of the very amp that they've heard the difference, could not tell the amps apart.
Can you detect low quality audio?
Another quick test. I passed all with my pc and headphones. Mp3s sound sort of trashy.
How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality? : The Record : NPR
Another quick test. I passed all with my pc and headphones. Mp3s sound sort of trashy.
How Well Can You Hear Audio Quality? : The Record : NPR
Moving towards the knowable
OK. So we are getting somewhere in terms of establishing what is knowable.
It is knowable and known that mp3s were flawed.
But back to my earlier post on page 116:
I watched an interesting lecture by John Atkinson on loudspeaker measurements. All these measurements should reveal if the loudspeaker is capable of high fidelity sound reproduction. If not there is no use in the measurements.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j77VKw9Kx6U
OK. So we are getting somewhere in terms of establishing what is knowable.
It is knowable and known that mp3s were flawed.
But back to my earlier post on page 116:
I watched an interesting lecture by John Atkinson on loudspeaker measurements. All these measurements should reveal if the loudspeaker is capable of high fidelity sound reproduction. If not there is no use in the measurements.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j77VKw9Kx6U
Last edited:
It is knowable and known that everything is flawed, except maybe flawless crystals, which are flawless by definition.
Not sure why any particular list of speaker measurements should be considered complete.
We can see cone resonance modes with laser interference patterns, but it's hard to say with complete accuracy how much cone flexure characteristics will affect fidelity from moment to moment since there is some nonlinearity involved and the nonlinearities may get excited differently depending on things like cone position, acceleration, recent history, temperature, etc.
However, it's not clear why you would say there might be no use in measurements. They may well help get closer to high fidelity most of the time, even if they are not perfect.
What I was trying to say was that: the measurements should help get the designer closer to high fidelity, or they are of no use. In the video the expert lists several speaker measurements but I think those measurements are not possible to do without expensive equipment and an anechoic chamber. So where does in leave the rest of us?
Last edited:
Hi Fi map or continuum
Has anyone tried to establish a Hi-Fi map or chart? It seems that there is a 'Hi-Fi continuum' here, but I was unable for find anything on the internet related to this idea, so here it is. Admittedly it is extremely broad, but it could be refined further I think.
I am now at the computer speaker stage of my journey. (Edifier M1350) The vintage system I have needs some re-spec I think. Audible distortion with CD with some voices.
I believe we need a map if we want to go anywhere.
Hi-Fi Continuum
Transistor Radio . Bluetooth Speaker System . Computer Speaker System . All in one System . Discrete Components . Systems highly rated by Hi Fi Magazines.
|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am here ------------------------------------------
Has anyone tried to establish a Hi-Fi map or chart? It seems that there is a 'Hi-Fi continuum' here, but I was unable for find anything on the internet related to this idea, so here it is. Admittedly it is extremely broad, but it could be refined further I think.
I am now at the computer speaker stage of my journey. (Edifier M1350) The vintage system I have needs some re-spec I think. Audible distortion with CD with some voices.
I believe we need a map if we want to go anywhere.
Hi-Fi Continuum
Transistor Radio . Bluetooth Speaker System . Computer Speaker System . All in one System . Discrete Components . Systems highly rated by Hi Fi Magazines.
|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am here ------------------------------------------
Last edited:
In a similar place to where we get left when we want to build state of the art amplifiers without a well equipped audio engineering electronics lab.
Which is to say, in some areas, we can't compete with what may be possible for those working in companies that have resources and budgets we don't have.
So you are saying we can buy or make or assemble (cobble together) Hi-Fi equipment but we can never really know for sure if it is really Hi-Fi or approaching Hi-Fi or even if it satisfies the DIN standard without the correct testing equipment?
So we sit in the dark blindly guessing as to whether or not it sounds like live music based on our memory?
This closes up a lot of possibilities.
Thanks. I am not familiar with that circuit, but I do not find it surprising that changing a resistor value might be audible. 25% change could be very significant in one circuit, and quite insignificant in another. One way to look at it is that there are a range of values which will give good results. If the existing value in in the centre of that range then changing it might have little effect. If it is at the edge of that range then changing it could have a big effect. The original designer may or may not have correctly understood what the range was, so he may have chosen a value near the edge of the range.stvnharr said:
?
Others have disputed this. My own view is that a good physics theory provides explanation, not merely prediction. One of the signs of this is when a theory makes accurate predictions in areas only loosely connected with the original domain. See, for example, some of the early chapters of The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch.Markw4 said:
You know, I was afraid someone would say that.
Now I have a feeling of being trapped in an intellectual quicksand.
Last edited:
Okay, I took a look at it. It appears to be more of a philosophy book written by a scientist, as opposed to a science book. Even at that, when Deutsch gets out of specific area of scientific expertise, his science becomes considerably weaker.
Reminds me of this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature in the sense of being a philosophical book written by a scientist. One big difference between the two books is that Deacon is not such an easy read, compared to Deutch.
Yes, it is mainly philosophy - although informed by science, unlike most philosophy which seems to be uninformed by anything other than other philosophers. I don't go along with everything he says. The later chapters are just speculation and his version of future hope. However, the book starts with a defence of the idea that physicists are actually explaining stuff and not merely predicting stuff; this I agree with.Markw4 said:
You sure do like excuses, don't you.
I simply gave you the benefit of doubt.....
I don´t understand your remark.
The answer to your question is given in the books as both cover the relevant material and contain comprehensive reference lists (which means hundreds).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.