Golden Ears and Meter Readers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#61
Originally Posted by john curl
... But to clear things up, serious audiophiles do NOT like added distortion
Click to expand...

Thats a rather naive generalization.
Whats your definition of distortion? Any effect that adds, takes away or alters the original is mine. And with that one almost every studio mic distorts the signal. If I played your audiophiles the same vocal recorded on various mics the last one they would pick is the one recorded with an (as close to perfect as possible) measurement mic. They would probably pick the U-87 because thats what they have heard most of there lives. Then that signal is run thru compressors, EQs, reverbs etc. to distort it into what audiophiles want to hear. (Even the flute on California dreaming)

Everyone likes some distortions, even you John.
 
#62
Sofaspud, we don't even know how to detect or measure the DARK MATTER in the universe. How dumb must we be to have not realized that without 'dark matter' that the galaxy would fall apart, and that Newton's Laws and Relativity don't give enough info?
Click to expand...
I think I have a better grasp of your problem.
Are you saying that it is dark matter that makes audio equipment sound good?
If I enter "dark matter" into Google, the bit of info under the link states, "In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is matter that is inferred to exist from gravitational effects on visible matter and gravitational lensing of background..." It's your analogy; give me just that much concerning audio reproduction. That's my point... even astrophysicists can provide more information on the mysterious "dark matter" of the universe than audio experts can provide about any mysterious playback characteristic. In my experience, anyway. This new opportunity seems no different.
Then how can you expect mere audio designers to be able completely understand and measure every problem that we have found?
Click to expand...
You must have my post confused with another. I never suggested such a thing. I did write this, "If true, then the obvious audio revolutionist will be the person(s) that can identify and address a new target." I stand by it, because that is how these kinds of things work. As I'm sure you already know.
 
#65
I agree with you Planet 10, but think about MY situation. When I took undergraduate physics the subject I found most fascinating was upper division mechanics or vector analysis of mechanical systems. Equipped with that knowledge, one thinks that they could predict all kinds of things, even the motion of a galaxy. To find out that the calculations could be SO FAR OFF, throws a wrench into the equation. It just goes to show you that you can't trust given knowledge completely and totally. It may work sometimes, and fail other times. What a concept!
 
#71
CopperTop said:
That's got to be something of a classic quote, surely!?
Click to expand...

What is so magical in number 1? 1% means 1/100. Why 1/100 is so critical?

I suppose, the amp has everything else very right, except this THD number, if the sound of amp+speakers recreates very realistic picture. I would suppose that this number does not matter for the purpose of recreating the realistic picture, according to the article.
 
#73
Wavebourn said:
What is so magical in number 1? 1% means 1/100. Why 1/100 is so critical?

I suppose, the amp has everything else very right, except this THD number, if the sound of amp+speakers recreates very realistic picture. I would suppose that this number does not matter for the purpose of recreating the realistic picture, according to the article.
Click to expand...

If only it was possible to carry a 550lb amp around; it would make a great headphone amplifier.
 
#75
stinius said:
I guess it's something like this.
Looks like quite normal speaker Z.
Click to expand...

Sure, but what's the point in measuring of frequency response of the amp loaded on such a thingy?

If he was curious about frequency response of the amp, she would use plain dumb resistive load.
If he was interested in frequency response of the amp+speakers he would use calibrated microphone.
But what's the point in his strange measurements?
 
#76
1) If he was curious about frequency response of the amp, she would use plain dumb resistive load.
2) If he was interested in frequency response of the amp+speakers he would use calibrated microphone.
3) But what's the point in his strange measurements?

1) No, a pure resistive load don't show the frequency response. In my opinion the frequency response should be ruler flat, independent of the load. Using a "real" speaker load reveals how the amp behaves.
2) No
3) I don't think it's "strange" see 1)

Stein
 
#77
Come on... 😉

If you feed such a load through resistor from any ideal signal generator you would get exactly the same curve. No point in such a measurement, except testing of accuracy of your speaker simulator. It has nothing to do with an amp in the question.
 
Last edited:
#79
Wavebourn said:
Sure, but what's the point in measuring of frequency response of the amp loaded on such a thingy?

If he was curious about frequency response of the amp, she would use plain dumb resistive load.
If he was interested in frequency response of the amp+speakers he would use calibrated microphone.
But what's the point in his strange measurements?
Click to expand...

Testing with a resistor makes no sense when the amplifier has a poor... sorry, 'musical' - damping factor, and testing with a speaker and microphone leaves the test open to criticism over the choice of speaker and microphone, placement etc. etc. etc. and is difficult to do. As long as the average speaker's output amplitude is more-or-less proportional to the voltage driving it, then measuring the amp's output across the load (real speaker or dummy circuit) is presumably about right, and easier to standardise..?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom