Hi,
I must say I have the utmost difficulty with the 1s, the 0s align themselves much more naturally...
Not that I care one bit or the other...😉
I must say I have the utmost difficulty with the 1s, the 0s align themselves much more naturally...
Not that I care one bit or the other...😉
"Yes. Any asymmetrical waveform will have a DC component. At least according to Fourier."
what if you had a sample wave that was made of 2 triangle portions, one negative and one positive. if both have the same area, the integral of such will be 0. seems in this case would allow one triangle area to be of a higher peak and lower average.
the DC component is 1/T * the integral of the wave over a period right?
what if you had a sample wave that was made of 2 triangle portions, one negative and one positive. if both have the same area, the integral of such will be 0. seems in this case would allow one triangle area to be of a higher peak and lower average.
the DC component is 1/T * the integral of the wave over a period right?
ALW said:
Depending on who is doing the testing, the listening period may be short or it may be long. In the tests by Tom Noisaine that I mentioned previously, the listening period can be as long as the listener chooses. And in general, a good portion of the tests don't place any particular limits on the listening period.
Most of the tests I've seen simply test to see if a difference can be reliably perceived. Even ABX testing really only relies on determining a simple difference rather than specific identification. If a difference can be detected, then the identification takes care of itself.
Over the past 20 years I've done a considerable amount of comparative listening and design iteration. And I often perceive differences while doing so.
The only difference is that I don't dogmatically conclude that what I've perceived was necessarily due to anything that's actually audible. And I can't make such a conclusion for two reasons; one, I know all too well how trivially easy it is for our subjective perceptions to be influenced by things other than actual audibility and two, because I've never done any controlled, double-blind listening tests to confirm actual audibility.
So I don't go about doing things any differently than most others and have many similar experiences. I'm just not as closed-minded as many others.
See what I mean? You've already reached a conclusion without knowing anything about me by which you could come to such a conclusion.
Same thing goes on with audio. People perceive differences and immediately leap to conclusions and then only consider that which they can make fit those conclusions to the exclusion of all other possibilities.
This as opposed to starting out with a question and then taking the appropriate steps to answer that question without caring where the truth may ultimately lay.
se
theChris said:
An ideal triangle wave is symmetrical and would have a DC component of 0. Same with an ideal square wave, sawtooth wave and sinewave.
se
perception is not reality
Fifteen minutes with a real sleight-of-hand artist will cause any thinking person to learn to have a healthy skepticism about the veracity of his perception.
Fifteen minutes with a real sleight-of-hand artist will cause any thinking person to learn to have a healthy skepticism about the veracity of his perception.
THINKING PEOPLE...
Hi,
I'm starting to understand why some women are desperately clinging to their "jarretelles", it's their only belief system.
Ooops, there goes a rubber band,😉
Hi,
I'm starting to understand why some women are desperately clinging to their "jarretelles", it's their only belief system.
Ooops, there goes a rubber band,😉
fdegrove said:
I always mount my my resistors around the same way, but that is purely an anal thing, done for asthetics. Doesn't matter so much anymore now that I only use 1% types, no gold stripes to line up anymore 🙂...... I do the same with my caps (electros being an exception of course, they tend to go bang if you put them in the wrong way round!).....
I'm willing to accept that better quality cables can make a difference (to a certain limit, My interconects only cost me around $15, but are OFC low capacitance leads), but I'm too sceptical to buy into the whole directivity thing. I know years ago I thought my CD player had gone on the blink, turned out to be the rca lead, I don't know what happened to it, but hell it made an awfull mess of the sound. We are talking sound that was virtually unrecognisable, anyone and I mean anyone would have been able to tell there was something wrong!!!!
Also had to initially hook up my dvd player to my new telly with a composite video lead, because I didn't have a component one yet, I had two identical Supposedly reasonable quality OFC leads, when using the first one, I got vertical stripes on the screen (sort of ghosting), changed the lead and the picture was perfect (well as good as you will get with composite video anyway).
Regards,
Tony.
The statement in this box is false....
It's true that people are easily deceived; by others and by themselves.
I know that there is no single truth in human perception.
The above statements are self defeating, like much of the argument in this thread.
Why not just accept that there are those with faith and those that need proof?
It's true that people are easily deceived; by others and by themselves.
I know that there is no single truth in human perception.
The above statements are self defeating, like much of the argument in this thread.
Why not just accept that there are those with faith and those that need proof?
Hi,
As much as I like symmetry, when it comes to resistors I very much doubt manufacturers are following the same game...
When it comes to coupling caps and PP amps I challenge anyone even further....
No bangs, I assure you...😉
As much as I like symmetry, when it comes to resistors I very much doubt manufacturers are following the same game...
When it comes to coupling caps and PP amps I challenge anyone even further....
No bangs, I assure you...😉
Re: The statement in this box is false....
Where do I fit in? I don't have blind faith, but neither do I need proof. By that I mean that if something works for me, while I don't assume that it works for any physical reasons, I go with it just the same and don't require any proof that it works for any physical reasons.
The problems come about when those of the faithful attempt to assert their faith as objective fact. And once you step over that line then there should a burden of proof.
se
dhaen said:
Where do I fit in? I don't have blind faith, but neither do I need proof. By that I mean that if something works for me, while I don't assume that it works for any physical reasons, I go with it just the same and don't require any proof that it works for any physical reasons.
The problems come about when those of the faithful attempt to assert their faith as objective fact. And once you step over that line then there should a burden of proof.
se
There is one recurring problem with this type of threads.
On the one hand we have "extremists" who claim various
subtle things to be audible and call everybody who doesn't
understand that or demands scientific evidence an idiot.
This is simply stupid.
On the other hand we have the opposite "extermists" who
claim it is impossible these things could be audible, referring
to standard, and often simplified, textbook theory and call
everybody not getting this an idiot.
This is equally stupid.
Actually, most people in the discussions fall somewhere in
between, but for lack of reading ability/lack of ability to follow
a logical argument/uncertainty about their own beliefs some
extremists at either end often try labbeling these
people into the opposite extremist camp, causing even
more endless and pointless argumentation.
This is probably the biggest problem in these threads.
Those who claim to hear these differences most certainly do
so, but if because they really are audible or it is for psychological
effects, we cannot know. Each individual may have a very strong
belief one way or another, possible fully convincing to this
particular individial. However, unless the issue is settled one
way or another according to some well-agreed on verification
method, it all remains beliefs. I do realize, however, that
currently agreed on verification methods may have flaws not
making them reliable for certain purposes, but then we have
to refine these methods.
Maybe I am picky because I am a scientist, but there is a big
difference between claiming X and just saying that I believe X
or I am personally convinced that X. And if you absolutely must
state your beliefs as claims, then please, do at least skip
the insults.
Then, of course, as Steve said, even if one is not convinced that
a certain tweak actually does improve the sound, but believes
it does, then it seems sensible to use the tweak. If it adds to
your enjoyment of music, it doesn't perhaps matter so much
if the effect is real or psychological. I would have no problem
to sleep at night for worrying about this (well, I often suffer
from insomia, but that is unrelated to audio issues). Similarly,
if a manufacturer actually honestly believes a certain product
improves the sound, then it is at least honest. However, this
maufacturer should still be careful to make strong claims,
unless backing it up by evidence. (Yes I know marketing and
advertisement go by their own rules, which makes me often
despise marketing and advertisement people).
On the one hand we have "extremists" who claim various
subtle things to be audible and call everybody who doesn't
understand that or demands scientific evidence an idiot.
This is simply stupid.
On the other hand we have the opposite "extermists" who
claim it is impossible these things could be audible, referring
to standard, and often simplified, textbook theory and call
everybody not getting this an idiot.
This is equally stupid.
Actually, most people in the discussions fall somewhere in
between, but for lack of reading ability/lack of ability to follow
a logical argument/uncertainty about their own beliefs some
extremists at either end often try labbeling these
people into the opposite extremist camp, causing even
more endless and pointless argumentation.
This is probably the biggest problem in these threads.
Those who claim to hear these differences most certainly do
so, but if because they really are audible or it is for psychological
effects, we cannot know. Each individual may have a very strong
belief one way or another, possible fully convincing to this
particular individial. However, unless the issue is settled one
way or another according to some well-agreed on verification
method, it all remains beliefs. I do realize, however, that
currently agreed on verification methods may have flaws not
making them reliable for certain purposes, but then we have
to refine these methods.
Maybe I am picky because I am a scientist, but there is a big
difference between claiming X and just saying that I believe X
or I am personally convinced that X. And if you absolutely must
state your beliefs as claims, then please, do at least skip
the insults.
Then, of course, as Steve said, even if one is not convinced that
a certain tweak actually does improve the sound, but believes
it does, then it seems sensible to use the tweak. If it adds to
your enjoyment of music, it doesn't perhaps matter so much
if the effect is real or psychological. I would have no problem
to sleep at night for worrying about this (well, I often suffer
from insomia, but that is unrelated to audio issues). Similarly,
if a manufacturer actually honestly believes a certain product
improves the sound, then it is at least honest. However, this
maufacturer should still be careful to make strong claims,
unless backing it up by evidence. (Yes I know marketing and
advertisement go by their own rules, which makes me often
despise marketing and advertisement people).
Steve Eddy said:
Actually, I think that was about what you have been trying
to say all along, but for some reason many people don't seem
to get it. Maybe time to try the Swahili variant for a change. 🙂
Ah, now people will probably not understand what I said just
because I posted this. 😉
Christer said:
Hehehe. Well there wasn't anything I saw that I'd disagree with so I'd say you summed it up quite well.
You just had to go and jinx it didn't you? 🙂
se
Steve Eddy said:
Not that I suppose it matters much if I understand it or not,
but out of curiosity from a language point of view, could
you please explain that sentence.
I found the word "jinx" in my Oxford, but I am still uncetain how
to interpret it in this context. I have also encountered the
word once as the name of a female character in a novel, but
I am sure that is not appropriate here. 🙂
I think it was rather the context. Oxford explained it as
"bad luck", I think, but it wasn't clear to me if it meant bad
luck for me or for Steve. Or maybe, both those interpreatations
are wrong?
"bad luck", I think, but it wasn't clear to me if it meant bad
luck for me or for Steve. Or maybe, both those interpreatations
are wrong?
real world example of a jynx
Hi Christer,
I have jynxed two of my cars in the past (actually I've only ever had two cars). One was my 1965 morris 1100, I had driven to a place called pebbly beach about 6 hours drive south of Sydney. Met some people there who asked me if I had ever had any major problems with it, to which I replied no, its been a wonerfully trouble free car. Three days later it blew an exhaust valve, and I had to drive back to Sydney on 3 cylinders, 3 months after fixing the head the rings went. So by saying it had never had any major problems, I jynxed it.
Same thing happened with my Peugeot, 3 days after telling someone nothing bad had ever gone wrong with it, I blew a heater hose, followed by the head gasket, and warped the head, since then It has had quite a few fairly major problems!!!
Regards,
Tony.
Hi Christer,
I have jynxed two of my cars in the past (actually I've only ever had two cars). One was my 1965 morris 1100, I had driven to a place called pebbly beach about 6 hours drive south of Sydney. Met some people there who asked me if I had ever had any major problems with it, to which I replied no, its been a wonerfully trouble free car. Three days later it blew an exhaust valve, and I had to drive back to Sydney on 3 cylinders, 3 months after fixing the head the rings went. So by saying it had never had any major problems, I jynxed it.
Same thing happened with my Peugeot, 3 days after telling someone nothing bad had ever gone wrong with it, I blew a heater hose, followed by the head gasket, and warped the head, since then It has had quite a few fairly major problems!!!
Regards,
Tony.
Another SE BS Story ?...............
I have never heard it mentioned.
I also searched the net and came up empty.
By all means enlighted us.
Eric.
Steve Eddy said:
I have never heard it mentioned.
I also searched the net and came up empty.
By all means enlighted us.
Eric.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.