spzzzzkt said:
I don't think anyone argues that this is real... to some degree...to some people.. sometimes. Snobs and week-minded people/followers are to be found everywhere. The mistake is to assume that all people are like that.
When I choose food and drinks I go strictly on taste and nutritious content. The best whine I did ever drink was a Cabernet that did cost €6. Tried a lot of wines and nothing compared to that cheap stuff. Unfortunately they removed it and I can't find it anymore. I have been trying to find a new favourite without success.
Champagne the same thing. I drank one that was very good at my firends wedding but mostly when peole bring expensive champagne I just shake my head. Cava or whatever would definately fool most of those winesnobbs in a blind test.
Give me a Carlsberg Hof or a glas of Asti Cinzano and I'm happy! 😀
Whiskey seems to be antoher thing though. Even though there are cheaper stuff that is ok my favourite is expensive. Glengoyne.
/Peter
andy_c said:
Sorry I don't remember. But yes since the test was run at aprox. 1W according to my friend It should have used a pot at the input. I doubt he attenuated the signal 25dB in the soundcard mixer. If so I really need to get my ears examined. 😀
/Peter
I fully agree, this is a way to test thing which makes a lot of sense. A while ago we did such a remote blind testing, with someone who recorded the analog output of various DACs/CD-Players playing the same piece from CD, using a 24/192 format, then prepared and resampled/dithered it to 44/16 and uploaded the files, not telling anybody which is which. We were asked to find out differences and describe them, thus it wasn't ABX but a preference test, sort of "select the one that sounds best to you". But it was as blind as can be and was much fun. Also there is a relaxed atmosphere, as you don't test in a public contest situation. One could cheat, though, investigating the files closely (with all the tools we have at hand), which I did later on trying to find correlations between listening and measurent. In simple cases this was quite succesfull (like slight HF roll-off etc) while more subtle things were hard to correlate, if at all (but, I strongly believe that one can always find a measurement that will strongly correlate to the listening impression if we try hard enough, which might not be the case, as of now).Pan said:
As usual, some heard differences, some didn't (with not much correlation to the playback systems used). After a while the connections sample<-->device were disclosed and we were told what to listen for to easiliy identify the files. This is the important aspect of training and some found out that they could learn to identify the files better after training. This is much the same as with the online distortion test by Klippel, http://www.klippel-listeningtest.de/lt
- Klaus
Andre Visser said:
Well, of course you can have a 1-bit DAC operating at a sample rate of 2.9GHz, but if you want all-digital i.e. switching operation (and bit-perfect linearity, no missiing or inaccurate levels) then it's that or PWM.
There may be a problem running the power switching at this frequency tho', and I don't want to visualise the reconstruction filter, to say nothing about stopping the signal leaping off into the ether.
The beauty of the PWM is that it's do-able, certainly at 16-bit 44k1, and there's no real amplifier to speak of, the digital samples go into a glorified switching regulator which connects directly to the speakers. If you want more power, you just use bigger, better or more switching devices, and a beefier reconstruction filter.
Like a class-D amplifier, but without the audio stage, triangle wave, comparator and all that guff. You know, direct digital.
That's what I mean, audio amplifier design is dead.
w
john curl said:
The source, primarily. Lots of butchered recordings and cheesy front-ends out there.
wakibaki said:
DSD are today used at 64fs and 128fs which gives close to 100kHz and 200kHz respectively and a 120dB dynamic range.
128fs is aprox. 5.6MS/s. Why would you want to use a sample rate 500 times that?
Yea, there may be a problem..
/Peter
You could even use valves for the switches. Harmonic distortion is not an issue in switching applications.
w
w
Pan said:
I think we just hit the source of my "tin ears!" Anybody want to donate a super spiffy set of new drivers for me to try some different amps with? 😀
Yea, I can't fault you there. I'm rather partial to Balvine 21, but my wallet is more a fan of Glenlivet 12.
Which in a round about way comes back to a central focus of why we are having this discussion: Assuming that audio equipment budgets are finite (which is only NOT the case for a small percentage of those among us) why should those dollars be invested in an incremental, or as some here have said "non-existent," change/improvement in sound quality by spending uber bucks on amplifiers when those bucks could produce much better returns via better drivers?
I personally haven't had enough experience with high end amps to make a claim either way as to whether there is a significant sound difference amongst them, but I certainly believe there is a significant difference in sound quality from my old Sony receiver and the chipamp I have running my speakers now (and, for that matter, the gainclone I "retired" since it never sounded beefy enough on the low end for me).
I BELIEVE I could easily tell the two apart in a blind test, but never having done it, who knows. . . .
For me, I have passed the "good enough" test for now with my el-cheapo chipamp. I guess that new set of speakers I plan to build after I move across town will bring that back into question. Besides, I like fiddling with electronics, so I am sure I can find an excuse to build a new amp regardless of whether it will generate any real sound improvement or not. I know that I will ENJOY listening to it more that I would anything I bought from someone else.
David
Pan said:
Which really just confirms the conclusion of the study that peoples anticipated experience is closely correlated with results. You are tasting wine with the preconceived notion that you will not find a wine better than your 6euro bottle. The result is nothing you taste is better.
Do you mean to tell me that there IS better tasting wine than 6Euro? 3 buck Chuck in the USA. In my world, that is reality.
Slight misunderstanding
"Better functioning amps" doesnt need to be especially expencive highend amps, on the contrary it could just as well be diy...although I have been dissappointed a few times I know now that its possible to build better amps
Sorry to say that the only diy amp I know of to be better than even expencive stuff, and maybe as good as any is not available any more...unless someone wants to redesign it from 4-layer smd to a more diy friendly 2-layer hole mounted, if possible at all
But there are other highly praised diy kits out there
I believe that experience and careful building is the key to get the last bit of resolution, besides a sound and solid rock stable design...and some luck
Ahhh, I forgot...there are no good amps...all average
"Better functioning amps" doesnt need to be especially expencive highend amps, on the contrary it could just as well be diy...although I have been dissappointed a few times I know now that its possible to build better amps
Sorry to say that the only diy amp I know of to be better than even expencive stuff, and maybe as good as any is not available any more...unless someone wants to redesign it from 4-layer smd to a more diy friendly 2-layer hole mounted, if possible at all
But there are other highly praised diy kits out there
I believe that experience and careful building is the key to get the last bit of resolution, besides a sound and solid rock stable design...and some luck
Ahhh, I forgot...there are no good amps...all average
The point here is: Some people concentrate on hi fi design, others concentrate on fine wine, yet others concentrate on really good tasting food, cars, etc.
For some, a minimum quality is just OK in virtually every area of interest, for others, 2 or more areas of interest are really important.
However, I don't go to a good food or wine website and chastise the makers and imbibers for wasting time and money on what they like to pay attention to.
Why is it hi fi that has to take the brunt of the criticism, even from fairly intelligent and educated people? Could it be that you have been 'brainwashed' by others? Is there some sort of political purpose for all this? Inquiring minds need to know!
Any ideas?
For some, a minimum quality is just OK in virtually every area of interest, for others, 2 or more areas of interest are really important.
However, I don't go to a good food or wine website and chastise the makers and imbibers for wasting time and money on what they like to pay attention to.
Why is it hi fi that has to take the brunt of the criticism, even from fairly intelligent and educated people? Could it be that you have been 'brainwashed' by others? Is there some sort of political purpose for all this? Inquiring minds need to know!
Any ideas?
was that directed at anyone specifically or a general question?
from my perspective, the study on wine I linked to was interesting in as far as the conclusions underscored the influence of preconceptions of price or status on the way people ranked the product being tested. the fact the product was wine is irrelevant.
from my perspective, the study on wine I linked to was interesting in as far as the conclusions underscored the influence of preconceptions of price or status on the way people ranked the product being tested. the fact the product was wine is irrelevant.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.