She was a saint! I doubt that Mr. Curl would have dated saints
Well she’s about the right age, had a lot of loopy ideas on the other hand, and was persecuted about as much as he thinks he is.
Hi John,
Can you do us a favor and point the way towards a topic you'd like to consider? Phono preamps, MC and otherwise, are good topics still.
Hi Joshua,
You may have found the perfect loudspeakers for yourself, and that's perfectly fine. I don't expect to hear a pair any time soon (one never knows though), but between your description and review, plus what has been stated by the manufacturer, I doubt they are truly accurate. They are not marketed to be.
Not of this should diminish your enjoyment of them in any way. Personally, I prefer speaker systems designed with accuracy in mind, so I own speakers designed by Paul Barton with help from Floyd Toole. Still, even these would be terrible performers compared to what could be created using active crossovers (good ones, John approved if you wish) and individual amplifiers for each transducer. Anything short of this construction is compromised too badly to even consider to be accurate.
What's the point? There are no shortage of quacks out there with half baked plans and explanations. These days, discoveries are not hidden away that often. When a discovery occurs, it is vetted by other scientists and examined by the author's peers. The only quacks that complain a discovery of their's is not being accepted are those who have data or observations that do not stand up to examinations. To accept these ideas as valid at this point is somewhat foolish, don't you think? If an idea can stand up to examination, then it can be accepted as factual. If it's proved to be false, it's a dead issue.
The imagery of David vs Goliath is a romantic one I guess, but misses the point you are making.
-Chris
Now, on to the hearing debate.
Can you do us a favor and point the way towards a topic you'd like to consider? Phono preamps, MC and otherwise, are good topics still.
Hi Joshua,
You may have found the perfect loudspeakers for yourself, and that's perfectly fine. I don't expect to hear a pair any time soon (one never knows though), but between your description and review, plus what has been stated by the manufacturer, I doubt they are truly accurate. They are not marketed to be.
Not of this should diminish your enjoyment of them in any way. Personally, I prefer speaker systems designed with accuracy in mind, so I own speakers designed by Paul Barton with help from Floyd Toole. Still, even these would be terrible performers compared to what could be created using active crossovers (good ones, John approved if you wish) and individual amplifiers for each transducer. Anything short of this construction is compromised too badly to even consider to be accurate.
I guess then that any studies that are not complete should be ignored completely? No, the facts are not completely known, but the understanding of the subject has many things nailed down. You can't pick and choose only what you like from the collected works of many physicists. Work with what is known.
I can't agree with that statement. Psychoacoustics is brought to bear on the cosmetics, packaging and sales oriented advertising of the product. People with refined listening is a term that is not defined. To what standard do you hold the term "refined listening"?
You're kidding - right? We can roughly measure emotions, interrogators make use of this fact. A human soul has nothing at all to do with reproducing music. One "designer" I know of has no shortage of soul, but his equipment does have a distinct shortage of reliability and sound quality (measured and otherwise). Emotion and soul are what the listener brings to the table. This often determines whether we enjoy ourselves or not. Please don't confuse this with designing equipment to accurately reproduce program material. My words were deliberate here Joshua.
Aside from having not much to do with the major topics in this thread, I can't figure out what you are trying to get at here. If you are referring to early scientists being ridiculed and laughed at (and killed BTW), you might want to bring in the proper context for these statements. Back in time when science was in it's infancy, control of the people was shared by the local kings and warlords, and the church (pick one local to your setting). People were kept ignorant so they could be manipulated with stories and fear. Science, by virtue of being based on facts, threatened the hold on people by the churches of the day. They reacted predictably by killing, banishing or confining those who threatened their grip on the average person. Still happens today to some extent. When you have a faith based system, truth and facts are your worst nightmares.
What's the point? There are no shortage of quacks out there with half baked plans and explanations. These days, discoveries are not hidden away that often. When a discovery occurs, it is vetted by other scientists and examined by the author's peers. The only quacks that complain a discovery of their's is not being accepted are those who have data or observations that do not stand up to examinations. To accept these ideas as valid at this point is somewhat foolish, don't you think? If an idea can stand up to examination, then it can be accepted as factual. If it's proved to be false, it's a dead issue.
The imagery of David vs Goliath is a romantic one I guess, but misses the point you are making.
-Chris
Now, on to the hearing debate.
Well, 'Better a has-been, than a never-was' young people. Unfortunately, the 'breathless wonder' that I dated 35+ years ago, is now very close to my age, and most probably a grandmother, today, as I am a grandfather.
Pathetic Fallacy:
The mistake of attributing human aspirations, emotions, feelings, thoughts, or traits to events or inanimate objects which do not possess the capacity for such qualities.
What did I win? 😱
In mathematics they often use/used theorems which haven't been proven just because they worked. And they often got proven at a much later date. Some doctors choose to stay ignorant about the brain just because they can't see proof on an MRI.
Sometimes you just got to do what works based on theory, or an idea, just because it works. Though I'm not saying this is the same as pathetic fallacy.
Theorems are by definition provable. Laws on the other hand, are not provable - only "falsifiable" (disprovable) to use Popper's language.
Since you guys are off topic...
Here's something some of you might find interesting
Audibility of temporal smearing and time misalignment of acoustic signals, [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]M. N. Kunchur, Technical Acoustics, 17 (2007).
[/FONT]http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/papers/Audibility-of-time-misalignment-of-acoustic-signals---Kunchur.pdf
Abstract:
Misalignment in timing between drivers in a speaker system and temporal smearing of signals in
components and cables have long been alleged to cause degradation of fidelity in audio reproduction.
It has also been noted that listeners prefer higher sampling rates (e.g., 96 kHz) than the 44.1
kHz of the digital compact disk, even though the 22 kHz Nyquist frequency of the latter already
exceeds the nominal single-tone high-frequency hearing limit fmax∼18 kHz. These qualitative and
anecdotal observations point to the possibility that human hearing may be sensitive to temporal
errors, τ , that are shorter than the reciprocal of the limiting angular frequency [2πfmax]−1 ≈ 9
μs, thus necessitating bandwidths in audio equipment that are much higher than fmax in order to
preserve fidelity. The blind trials of the present work provide quantitative proof of this by assessing
the discernability of time misalignment between signals from spatially displaced speakers. The
experiment found a displacement threshold of d≈2 mm corresponding to a delay discrimination of
τ≈6 μs.
the website:
Information for prospective students
I got the reference from a DIYAudio thread which was shut down due to violations of of the equivalent of 'Godwin's law'
Here's something some of you might find interesting
Audibility of temporal smearing and time misalignment of acoustic signals, [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]M. N. Kunchur, Technical Acoustics, 17 (2007).
[/FONT]http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/papers/Audibility-of-time-misalignment-of-acoustic-signals---Kunchur.pdf
Abstract:
Misalignment in timing between drivers in a speaker system and temporal smearing of signals in
components and cables have long been alleged to cause degradation of fidelity in audio reproduction.
It has also been noted that listeners prefer higher sampling rates (e.g., 96 kHz) than the 44.1
kHz of the digital compact disk, even though the 22 kHz Nyquist frequency of the latter already
exceeds the nominal single-tone high-frequency hearing limit fmax∼18 kHz. These qualitative and
anecdotal observations point to the possibility that human hearing may be sensitive to temporal
errors, τ , that are shorter than the reciprocal of the limiting angular frequency [2πfmax]−1 ≈ 9
μs, thus necessitating bandwidths in audio equipment that are much higher than fmax in order to
preserve fidelity. The blind trials of the present work provide quantitative proof of this by assessing
the discernability of time misalignment between signals from spatially displaced speakers. The
experiment found a displacement threshold of d≈2 mm corresponding to a delay discrimination of
τ≈6 μs.
the website:
Information for prospective students
I got the reference from a DIYAudio thread which was shut down due to violations of of the equivalent of 'Godwin's law'
Okay, thanks. I guess it was laws I was thinking about, as well as Fermat's Theorem which wasn't proven till 1995, at least for all integers greater that 2.
Fermat's Last Theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I guess I should have said laws, or conjecture or theory.
Last edited:
John, you win an all-expenses-paid dinner at Trudy's in Austin, where Audio Geeks Meet to Eat. Travel and lodging not included. Offer not good after curfew in sectors R and M. Your mileage may vary.
Yes, the pathetic fallacy is very common- electronic devices, no matter who designs and builds them, have no consciousness, no "soul," no feelings, they're just algorithmic physical constructs. A preamplifier makes a signal bigger- if it does so accurately, it "cares" not whether the signal is music, voices, sounds of passing automobiles, cosmic noise, whatever.
Musicians make music. Preamplifiers make a voltage bigger. That may be dull compared to audiophile poetry, but it has the virtue of being true.
Yes, the pathetic fallacy is very common- electronic devices, no matter who designs and builds them, have no consciousness, no "soul," no feelings, they're just algorithmic physical constructs. A preamplifier makes a signal bigger- if it does so accurately, it "cares" not whether the signal is music, voices, sounds of passing automobiles, cosmic noise, whatever.
Musicians make music. Preamplifiers make a voltage bigger. That may be dull compared to audiophile poetry, but it has the virtue of being true.
Do you think you can know how those speakers sound from reading about it?
I'm listening to those speakers every day. They reproduce music most natural and lifelike, more than any other speakers I've ever heard.
I have no idea what you mean by accurate. With my speakers the impression is that there's a live performance in my living room. I cannot ask for more than that.
Not at all.
My point is that there's no way to know how any piece of audio gear sounds by measurements alone.
That's the way you view it. Psychoacoustics is science.
Indeed, it isn't defined scientifically. My reference is my own listening. Of course, this is a reference for me only.
My view is different than yours.
Without a listener, audio reproducing gear is meaningless.
Again, I don't know what you mean by accurate here. In my understanding, accuracy pertains only to measurements. What I'm looking for in audio reproduction gear is a reproduction which is as close as possible to live performance.
Indeed. To many people, what they know science says is their religiously held belief system, while their knowledge of science is limited.
Do you consider Amit Goswami a quack?
Also, who, or what, do you think is the observer that affects quantum levels phenomena?
Also, what do you think consciousness is?
While this is true, some do less damage to the signal that passes thru their circuits than others. Call it colorations, distortions, what ever term you prefer, the differences are there.
Am I to assume that you feel that ever amplifier/preamplifier sounds identical, if they measure the same? You hear no difference in tube circuits vs. SS? Again if they measure the same? The fallacy is that the few that try to use science to tell the majority that they have been brainwashed. The repeated attempts to persuade the subjective listeners that they are just biased and do not hear anything that they think they do is ludicrous.
I guess the amount of time spent in these efforts makes some feel better. Maybe it is their egos that makes them feel that anything that they build is as good or better than anything else out there is reassuring to some degree. Knowledge is a wonderful thing, but blind obedience is a fatal flaw in anything.
Last edited:
There's one attribute expected from a good audio amplifiers – that the output signal will be an exact replica of the input signal, exact replica in all attributes other than amplitude. Of course, this is impossible to achieve, not fully. The aim is to achieve it to the best possible degree.
Also, measurements like SNR, THD, IM and TIM doesn't relate to all possible differences between the input and output signals. Frequency dependent phase shift is only one difference that escapes the above mentioned measurements. Frequency dependent temporal shift is another one.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.