@ jneutron,
the Frindel paper can be purchased via:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=7077
But as a reminder, he is just describing that he and his team found following effects reliable detectable by using a good control/listening room and the ABX-protocol.
@ audio-kraut,
That is an interesting topic itself.
Paul Frindle wrote about that:
`Contrary to common sense, it is a disadvantage to use a room with highly damped acoustic treatment. It has been found that a comfortably moderate room reverberation time enhances abiltiy to detect errors due to delay, phase and modulation products´
Of course he is speaking about an acoustical very good listening room done by a studio designer. But under this circumstances he finds the room more revealing than headphones. (i´d assume in this respect that he was not talking about records and headphones using HRTFs)
I this context i remember Bruno Putzeys ones describing an interesting experiment done by the people of gradient in finnland. It was related to the vanishing of audible differences when approaching RAR conditions. I have to search for it.
@ Thetubeguy1954,
it is some sort of misunderstanding. As measurement techniques were nearly constantly evolving it is mostly not a problem to measure differences between two audio devices, but the ongoing debate concentrates on the fact that these differences are often well below the accepted listening thresholds and should therefore not lead to a detectable/audible difference.
So it might be in the end that we just have to restate these listening thresholds to explain a lot of effects. 🙂
P.S. As stated earlier, we can´t separate our ears from our brain, but in case of a microphone someone has to mimic our brain´s analysing concept (which aren´t known today in every detail) to be able to interpret the microphone output in the same way as a human listener would do it with his hearing ability.
And the HRTF-issues i´m neglecting at this point.
the Frindel paper can be purchased via:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=7077
But as a reminder, he is just describing that he and his team found following effects reliable detectable by using a good control/listening room and the ABX-protocol.
@ audio-kraut,
That is an interesting topic itself.
Paul Frindle wrote about that:
`Contrary to common sense, it is a disadvantage to use a room with highly damped acoustic treatment. It has been found that a comfortably moderate room reverberation time enhances abiltiy to detect errors due to delay, phase and modulation products´
Of course he is speaking about an acoustical very good listening room done by a studio designer. But under this circumstances he finds the room more revealing than headphones. (i´d assume in this respect that he was not talking about records and headphones using HRTFs)
I this context i remember Bruno Putzeys ones describing an interesting experiment done by the people of gradient in finnland. It was related to the vanishing of audible differences when approaching RAR conditions. I have to search for it.
@ Thetubeguy1954,
it is some sort of misunderstanding. As measurement techniques were nearly constantly evolving it is mostly not a problem to measure differences between two audio devices, but the ongoing debate concentrates on the fact that these differences are often well below the accepted listening thresholds and should therefore not lead to a detectable/audible difference.
So it might be in the end that we just have to restate these listening thresholds to explain a lot of effects. 🙂
P.S. As stated earlier, we can´t separate our ears from our brain, but in case of a microphone someone has to mimic our brain´s analysing concept (which aren´t known today in every detail) to be able to interpret the microphone output in the same way as a human listener would do it with his hearing ability.
And the HRTF-issues i´m neglecting at this point.
ravon said:
I have explained why I swapped the cable direction, I did check the cables not the equipment. 😀
At least that braindeadness is consequent when I do comparisons, so I'm happy. 😉
André
Re: Re: Re: Electronics Vs The Human Ear --- Which Is More Sensitive?
I have Tracktion - and an entire soft studio here. Software synths make the sounds -> straight to hard disk -> CD -> -> ears. 😉
I associate with Tubeguy's tale. I came back into hifi after years of just listening. Decided I would like new speakers, went along to Glasgow Audio to organise a demo session. Guys booked me in for an afternoon, coffee, my own CDs etc, and said - bring along my cables.
I thought "How bizarre. Do they not want to wear their own ones out or something" And ignored them.
However, piqued, I fired up Firefox and found the world of hifi cables. Next thing, just to see what was what, I was weaving my own Cat5, buying Kimber (for the amazing magic RF-defying weave), trying silver-clad copper, building ICs, coaxial, twisted pairs, power cables.
To my surprise, everything sounded slightly different to me. But it was all a bit annoying because none of the "differents" were identifiably "best". On a whim I bought a valve amp, and kit transmission lines. Cable after cable came and went. I became a sad DIY cable junkie, I muttered Belden in my sleep!
I began to mistrust reviews because they didn't match what I heard. I rejected my Kimber and put it on my parents system and they got burgled. The thieves left the hifi (Marantz and Mission) and took the Kimber!
Finally, out of frustration, I read a good review on TNT for JPS Ultraconductors and found some second-hand. I bought my VdHs which were consistently well reviewed I thought right let's stick with these and get back to listening to music.
Every so often I would put my Nordost speaker cable back in (it looks fantastic!). But it was simply not as satisfying to listen to across the board.
At no stage did I consider psychology, nor listening blinded. I didn't really care about appearance (my preferred cables are pretty ugly) nor cost (cheap preferred but only if it sounds as good, I am prepared to pay if I really have to). However I do understand psychology, and perhaps I should have been more suspicious.
So DBT it is. This might have saved me a LOT of time and money and long, often unsatisfying critical listening sessions.
cliffforrest said:
I have Tracktion - and an entire soft studio here. Software synths make the sounds -> straight to hard disk -> CD -> -> ears. 😉
I associate with Tubeguy's tale. I came back into hifi after years of just listening. Decided I would like new speakers, went along to Glasgow Audio to organise a demo session. Guys booked me in for an afternoon, coffee, my own CDs etc, and said - bring along my cables.
I thought "How bizarre. Do they not want to wear their own ones out or something" And ignored them.
However, piqued, I fired up Firefox and found the world of hifi cables. Next thing, just to see what was what, I was weaving my own Cat5, buying Kimber (for the amazing magic RF-defying weave), trying silver-clad copper, building ICs, coaxial, twisted pairs, power cables.
To my surprise, everything sounded slightly different to me. But it was all a bit annoying because none of the "differents" were identifiably "best". On a whim I bought a valve amp, and kit transmission lines. Cable after cable came and went. I became a sad DIY cable junkie, I muttered Belden in my sleep!
I began to mistrust reviews because they didn't match what I heard. I rejected my Kimber and put it on my parents system and they got burgled. The thieves left the hifi (Marantz and Mission) and took the Kimber!
Finally, out of frustration, I read a good review on TNT for JPS Ultraconductors and found some second-hand. I bought my VdHs which were consistently well reviewed I thought right let's stick with these and get back to listening to music.
Every so often I would put my Nordost speaker cable back in (it looks fantastic!). But it was simply not as satisfying to listen to across the board.
At no stage did I consider psychology, nor listening blinded. I didn't really care about appearance (my preferred cables are pretty ugly) nor cost (cheap preferred but only if it sounds as good, I am prepared to pay if I really have to). However I do understand psychology, and perhaps I should have been more suspicious.
So DBT it is. This might have saved me a LOT of time and money and long, often unsatisfying critical listening sessions.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Electronics Vs The Human Ear --- Which Is More Sensitive?
Perhaps you could give some examples of sounds which can be heard but which cannot be measured?
Alan Hope said:
Perhaps you could give some examples of sounds which can be heard but which cannot be measured?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Electronics Vs The Human Ear --- Which Is More Sensitive?
Then, of course, there is no reference to any concept of "original sound". One can only "tweak until nice".
Just like most modern studio recorded, multi-miked, panned, mixed down and compressed stuff.
Alan Hope said:
Then, of course, there is no reference to any concept of "original sound". One can only "tweak until nice".
Just like most modern studio recorded, multi-miked, panned, mixed down and compressed stuff.
BTW - I am reboxing my Charlize at the moment to give me 3 selectable inputs. Once that is done it will be easier to do the DBT - just 1 end to swap over.
Hence no results yet!
Hence no results yet!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Electronics Vs The Human Ear --- Which Is More Sensitive?
😀 😀 😀
Now surely that must count for something. 😀 😀 😀
Alan Hope said:
😀 😀 😀
Now surely that must count for something. 😀 😀 😀
Alan Hope said:
How will you account for, or correct for, the ground loop inductance alterations that will be inevitable?
Remember, you have absolutely no control over the ground loop currents. ANY test regime (or physical setup) which alters the ground loop geometry will compromise the rigidity of the test parameters..
For single ended systems, I consider the use of a switch selectable box as, shall we say, "non rigorous"...
Cheers, John
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Electronics Vs The Human Ear --- Which Is More Sensitive?
Yes, the current price of metals..😀
Cheers, John
Andre Visser said:
Yes, the current price of metals..😀
Cheers, John
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Electronics Vs The Human Ear --- Which Is More Sensitive?
Either that or they must be subjectivists. 😀
André
jneutron said:
Either that or they must be subjectivists. 😀
André
jneutron said:
Switching a for b involves the physical disconnection of both ends of one of the cables. One end is disconnected by pulling the connectors off. The other end the wires go to a 3-way 4-pole selector, so all signals and grounds are completely disconnected at that end - apart from the wire being listened to. Pardon my ignorance, but where are the loops in that setup?
I am doing this in good faith, under test conditions that are the best I can achieve in the home. I actually don't care a fig if you reject my results (whatever they may turn out to be).
@ravon
Why ask me this slightly metaphysical question? I vividly remember connecting a good 1" condenser mic to my soundcard, and being appalled at the loud buzz in my headphones. After much cable and connector twiddling, I realised it was an electric hedge-trimmer about half a mile away, through my closed window. It was barely audible to the naked ear. The microphone was in fact DEAD silent, and staggeringly sensitive.
A good microphone is a hugely impressive piece of kit. Is that what you are asking?
Alan Hope said:
The tale of Tubeguy tells us that there may be audible sounds which cannot be measured.
Perhaps I misunderstood your words: "I associate with Tubeguy's tale". Otherwise I would be very interested in hearing those sounds.
MartinQ said:
Randi's contest is full of bologna. Read the terms carefully.
Andy Graddon said:
Some are bad to be sure. Let's not make broad generalizations.
slowmotion said:
I use simple 13 amp mains cable for my speakers.
Cables can be affected by the purity of the copper they are made from. Some cable can have a bit of resistance that soaks up some of your power.
Re: Electronics Vs The Human Ear --- Which Is More Sensitive?
Postulations are not science, just because you want magic sound to exist, doesn't mean it does.
AND, you can't take those two parameters and draw a conclusion- you are ignoring everything but two little ratios on a website by a guy with a resume.
Again, you found "evidence" that supported your theory and it boosted your confidence that you were right, how are you ever going to learn when you fight all evidence that contradicts your beliefs and blindly accept all that supports them?
thetubeguy1954 said:
Postulations are not science, just because you want magic sound to exist, doesn't mean it does.
If his science is sound, who he is is irrelevant. I trust fully documented and repeatable tests, if they are wrong anyone can prove it by replicating the test.
DUDE! a subjectivist quoting an engineer, maybe this is why subjectivists don't like DBT they don't know what the scientific method is😀 This was an informal test he did, there is no scientific procedure followed, no documentation nothing! This is not science, how can you guys bad mouth the science of DBT when you don't even know what the scientific method is?
AND, you can't take those two parameters and draw a conclusion- you are ignoring everything but two little ratios on a website by a guy with a resume.
Not proof positive, how about not even significant evidence?
Again, you found "evidence" that supported your theory and it boosted your confidence that you were right, how are you ever going to learn when you fight all evidence that contradicts your beliefs and blindly accept all that supports them?
Re: Re: Electronics Vs The Human Ear --- Which Is More Sensitive?
The proof of the sound is what pleasure it gives the listener.
Even if the sound is distorted to achieve that goal.
I took a short cut in the design of a MOSFET disco amplifier.
Did a gig with it and no one complained, in fact everyone had a great night.
I then decided to have a look again at the amp on the scope and it was suffering from quite severe crossover distortion because I hadnt biased the output transistors properly. I had used 2 diodes to bias it. The negative half of the waveform was very badly distorted.
When I put in a proper bias circuit I found I was needing 7 volts to bias it enough to get rid of crossover distortion.
Listening after the change I did notice a slightly cleaner sound but certainly nothing earth shattering.
nunayafb said:
The proof of the sound is what pleasure it gives the listener.
Even if the sound is distorted to achieve that goal.
I took a short cut in the design of a MOSFET disco amplifier.
Did a gig with it and no one complained, in fact everyone had a great night.
I then decided to have a look again at the amp on the scope and it was suffering from quite severe crossover distortion because I hadnt biased the output transistors properly. I had used 2 diodes to bias it. The negative half of the waveform was very badly distorted.
When I put in a proper bias circuit I found I was needing 7 volts to bias it enough to get rid of crossover distortion.
Listening after the change I did notice a slightly cleaner sound but certainly nothing earth shattering.
Re: Electronics Vs The Human Ear --- Which Is More Sensitive?
That article did not convince me. At the end quote, "The subject of sound quality is not at all clear-cut....." This is wriggle room for all sorts of theories, surely sound quality for home reproduction is a measure of how closely the sound pressure in your room corresponds to the signal on your media. This can be measured. Whether instruments can decode signals to know if it is a Strad or not is a red herring.
thetubeguy1954 said:
That article did not convince me. At the end quote, "The subject of sound quality is not at all clear-cut....." This is wriggle room for all sorts of theories, surely sound quality for home reproduction is a measure of how closely the sound pressure in your room corresponds to the signal on your media. This can be measured. Whether instruments can decode signals to know if it is a Strad or not is a red herring.
Alan Hope said:
There will be ground loops whenever a source chassis is connected to an amp chassis.
The physical geometry of that loop will couple to magfields. The resistance of the loop will determine the currents that are generated.
Why would I reject your results?Alan Hope said:
I simply point out the confounders...things that can be altered by the test setup. If the confounders are not accounted for, they can alter the outcome of the experiment.
Cheers, John
- Status
- Not open for further replies.