@anatech The OP hasn't posted since the first post. And even his premise was quite unclear then.
I'm not sure what the topic really is actually.
In fact, if reading the OP's post literally, the answer could be "no."
So, I don't know how you can conclude what is off-topic, or on-topic.
There are numerous threads on DIYaudio begging for moderation, yet you chose to sink your teeth into this one? It doesn't make much sense to me.
I think @soundbloke contributions are just fine.
Dave.
I'm not sure what the topic really is actually.
In fact, if reading the OP's post literally, the answer could be "no."
So, I don't know how you can conclude what is off-topic, or on-topic.
There are numerous threads on DIYaudio begging for moderation, yet you chose to sink your teeth into this one? It doesn't make much sense to me.
I think @soundbloke contributions are just fine.
Dave.
Last edited:
My post #78 clearly states why the information I have presented is highly relevant to this thread. If you can find any genuine reason why I am wrong in that statement, please state it. Otherwise please stop with your tiresome complaining.
I have no intention of "dragging" this thread "into the weeds". I have no other agenda either.
But I am now questioning why you are intent on trying to prevent my disclosure of relevant information? Just because you have expressed difficulty in understanding the subject matter should not prevent others from exploring it.
I think now I understand your meaning that measurements should be made with musical excerpts rather than test signals?? If so, there is some usefulness in spotting differences, but the number of differences is normally so vast that you have little chance of separating out the useful information. But the bispectrum does move in the right direction here, as it relates one frequency to another and moves us away from single frequency analysis.
Soundbloke wrote "If we wish to link subjective assessments to loudspeaker measures, we should first be clear of what those measures include and what they do not. An understanding of the physics involved helps considerably. Furthermore, a singular measure of distortion is unlikely to suffice in such a quest,..."
What about training AI to assess distortions in real music? We can choose a dozen or so tracks, pick up short segments of them into a reasonably long test vector, collect a database of how various drivers/loudspeakers distort them, ask volunteers to rate them, and supervised-train an appropriately sized AI. Then all you, DIY, or a vendor of audio equipment, need to do is the record spk output on the test vector and send it to web-hosted AI. Voila!
... to start with, we'll definitely need a few PhD students to do the work, under competent supervision, of, say, Fraunhofer Institute or Klippel...
What about training AI to assess distortions in real music? We can choose a dozen or so tracks, pick up short segments of them into a reasonably long test vector, collect a database of how various drivers/loudspeakers distort them, ask volunteers to rate them, and supervised-train an appropriately sized AI. Then all you, DIY, or a vendor of audio equipment, need to do is the record spk output on the test vector and send it to web-hosted AI. Voila!
... to start with, we'll definitely need a few PhD students to do the work, under competent supervision, of, say, Fraunhofer Institute or Klippel...
Even if there was a benefit to such a venture, it would still be flawed because our hearing also has the capacity to learn. You would still end up with thresholds of detection that were of little use when we are talking of small audible differences - or differences that are generated entirely in the mind of the listener!
And which of the test subjects would have been subject to the original recording to know what a high fidelity reproduction of that material sounds like?
I would suggest instead research continues along the lines I summarised in post #24, not least because the learned information would also enable engineers to improve their products by understanding the principles involved. A mere indication from one chosen body of people would give little information to guide the investigator as to why that preference was given.
Indeed there are many situations in which listeners show a preference for a more audibly coloured reproduction too. More bizarrely I also know of a test of three colours of Wharfedale Diamond loudspeakers that showed a marked preference for the sound quality of red ones! (I think blue came last). That might leave your AI application stumped, just as it does me!
Problem is that it is not easy to find out if you quoted a whole post or just parts. This makes it cumbersome as I see it. Also, by including the name, you get a link to the quoted post which makes it easy to check... please use the intended way. We can handle and so can newcomers I'm sure... the forum don't rest on your shoulders
//
Research is always good but unfortunately, the universe was not created to be only as complicated as a human is capable of comprehending it. The second-order effects in permanent magnet-based drivers (+ required precision) are beyond the explanations that our current state-of-the-art theoretical physics is capable of. Get over it.
Semiconductor industry, ASML etc, use Lorentz actuators (which are essentially a special kind of loudspeaker) that operate with sub-nanometers precision and blazing speeds. They do not even try to fully understand all the details down to Nth-order effects. Instead, they operate within a feedback-based control paradigm, with sensors, exchanging bandwidth for precision, adaptation loops, etc. Not the program control paradigm as used in loudspeakers today.
Now, try to convince any vendor to incorporate a wideband low-noise accelerometer up to 10g into the design... good luck. For them, this is a paradigm change they are principally incapable of comprehending.
No they are not. In fact they are very well understood, and there are many refereed papers even dedicated specifically to moving-coil transducers.
I was part of a project that utilized "sub-nanometer" optical sensing. It afforded no advantage compared to conventional coil sensing, and the current dependent driver distortion persisted as expected. The optimal engineering solution does not require a new paradigm.
[And to respond to a previous criticism by TNT, no "Quote" option appeared by the "Like" button on your response].
This is to discourage duplication.. the needless quoting of the whole post above. However when context dictates it is necessary to quote, you still can by selecting the needed text.
I have talked to Japanese academic researchers (on conferences, for many years) about their efforts to model loudspeakers in the non-linear domain, to predistort adaptively, and the dismal results (obnoxiously huge MIPS, < 15dB gain best case). AFAIK, all papers I am aware of share a defect - they do not agree with experimental data . Maybe, you know of other, non-academic publications, that I am not aware of? I am interested.
IMHO, the optical "sub-nanometer" optical sensing has nothing to do with the sub-nanometer precision of Lorentz actuators, which actually work pretty well. Regarding the opposite results of your work - I do not know enough details.
. Maybe, you know of other, non-academic publications, that I am not aware of? I am interested.IMHO, the optical "sub-nanometer" optical sensing has nothing to do with the sub-nanometer precision of Lorentz actuators, which actually work pretty well. Regarding the opposite results of your work - I do not know enough details.
Hi Davey,
Just because the OP has not posted since doesn't mean the direction can be twisted around as people see fit. The title is what others will search for in the future, and the contents of the thread ought to adhere to that. This is why threads are euthanized, or die naturally.
soundbloke
I am not trying to supress anything you are revealing to the world. Instead, due to the value of your information it seems a pity to be lost in a thread with a title that doesn't match your information. In a vain attempt to guide you to a wider audience where people can later easily locate your information I suggested you begin your own thread with a more apt title. Given your obvious higher education, I thought this would have been obvious to you without any suggestions.
At any rate, hold court. Enjoy. Too bad your discourse is mislabeled.
Your attitude could also use some adjustment, but that's only my humble opinion.
Just because the OP has not posted since doesn't mean the direction can be twisted around as people see fit. The title is what others will search for in the future, and the contents of the thread ought to adhere to that. This is why threads are euthanized, or die naturally.
soundbloke
I guess you have difficulty either reading or with comprehension. Let me attempt to help you again.
I am not trying to supress anything you are revealing to the world. Instead, due to the value of your information it seems a pity to be lost in a thread with a title that doesn't match your information. In a vain attempt to guide you to a wider audience where people can later easily locate your information I suggested you begin your own thread with a more apt title. Given your obvious higher education, I thought this would have been obvious to you without any suggestions.
At any rate, hold court. Enjoy. Too bad your discourse is mislabeled.
Your attitude could also use some adjustment, but that's only my humble opinion.
@anatech Just about every thread on this forum gets twisted around as people see fit. That's common for many forums.
I would have expected some courtesy by the members/moderators here until the OP returned and elaborated on his premise a bit. But, I guess that is just too much to hope for.
Dave.
That's common for many forums.I would have expected some courtesy by the members/moderators here until the OP returned and elaborated on his premise a bit. But, I guess that is just too much to hope for.
Dave.
Hi Davey,
Just because that is fine elsewhere doesn't mean it flies here. I don't think it is too much to ask to stay mostly on topic, and I gave very good reasons why threads should stay on topic.
If you have a soapbox, you aren't welcome to stick in anywhere. There are enough street corners here for that.
Just because that is fine elsewhere doesn't mean it flies here. I don't think it is too much to ask to stay mostly on topic, and I gave very good reasons why threads should stay on topic.
If you have a soapbox, you aren't welcome to stick in anywhere. There are enough street corners here for that.
@anatech The question is not whether the thread should stay on topic......The question was what on-topic really was in this thread. I don't think you or me or anybody else really knows until the OP returns and elaborates.
I think maybe a person that could use some attitude adjustment is looking at you in the mirror. That's my humble opinion.
Dave.
I think maybe a person that could use some attitude adjustment is looking at you in the mirror. That's my humble opinion.
Dave.