Except for answering my question regarding "audible sound quality" on post #1900.
I wasn't sure what you meant when you posted, "They are not harmonized properly. For example, it’s best to integrate the DAC with the preamp right away so that you can adjust the volume digitally. Output voltages are also not optimal. For example, the usual thing is when the signal is amplified, and then to adjust the volume, this sound signal is suppressed, and this is all for the sake of an outdated standard. If you simulate all this on a computer, it becomes clear that this all leads to a significant increase in distortions of all kinds."
So my question was, those usual components from the store (prior to speakers) for listening to the music of your choice at the listening spot of your choice, do they compromise the audible sound quality?
Naturally. All these components from different manufacturers and also with audio cables between them from different manufacturers sound differently. So their contribution is noticeable by ear. If they were perfect, this difference would not have been heard at all or this difference would have been extremely imperceptible.
If you really want to figure it out, you have to take it and try it yourself. Good luck.
If you really want to figure it out, you have to take it and try it yourself. Good luck.
Last edited:
Despite taking some time, your view on audio electronics finally surfaced. Thank you for that.
Now as for your answer to scott wurcer...
As Jakob2 tried asking but got no definite answer, what evidence would you find acceptable that two sets of audio gear comprising reproduction systems "sound different?"
Since the claim appears to be a perceptual one, are you asking for statistical evidence involving multiple listeners, a single person passing a single ABX or A/B trial, or what?
Hon. Sir. I don’t know how things are in the USA. But books were published in the USSR whose authors taught at universities and worked at the Institute of Broadcasting Reception and Acoustics. A. S. Popov (IRPA named after A. S. Popov) is a Soviet and Russian research institute (research institute) in St. Petersburg. He developed broadcasting reception equipment, household radio-electronic and acoustic equipment (BREA), and microphone equipment. Named in honor of A. S. Popov. Located on Kamenny Island in Leningrad (St. Petersburg). The methods of such tests were described in detail even back then. And all this has long been proven, too, back in those distant times.
Yes I'm sure the WW2 era military radios of the Germans, US, and Russian allies all sounded quite different. I deeply respect Russian engineering and especially their maths but did they actually document listening to wires?
Last edited:
You keep asking the same question but offer nothing. When the question of truly blind comes up we will again be greeted with several 1000 pages of psycho acoustic research to read and understand fully until we can even begin to talk.
Moreover, the medieval violins of various Italian masters also sound differently. Need proof?
Isn't that an ever-growing red herring? IIRC it started with a couple of dozens of papers that you (and like-minded others) were allegedly forced to read, and the number was raised over the time until reaching the "thousands".
Simply refusing to accept the established evidence in the field of sensory testing does obviously not help, strong belief is no substitute for knowledge.
Oh, Stradivaris also lose a lot of their special sound in blind tests, even among
professionals that are used to them.
I have once pointed to a reference in this large 3-part ego surfing thread.
"Stradivaris also lose a lot ....." gives IMO a certain twist to the story which isn't warranted by the studies which were actually done.
Fritz et al. did several studies over the years, trying to examine the myth that every Stradivari (or more generally, that every of the grand old Italian violins) per se has a certain magic, means is better projecting and better sounding than every modern violin.
The data suggest the myth isn't true....
Isn't that an ever-growing red herring? IIRC it started with a couple of dozens of papers that you (and like-minded others) were allegedly forced to read, and the number was raised over the time until reaching the "thousands".
Simply refusing to accept the established evidence in the field of sensory testing does obviously not help, strong belief is no substitute for knowledge.
And the answer is............?
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.