Funny isn't it this definition business? Still nothing from Jakob regarding "emotion" in audio reproduction research
Is that really what he has said?
No it wasn't, OTOH Earl has stated on numerous occasions the days of transparent electronics has come and long gone.
Absolutely. The 5% comment was said on this forum
He made the 5% comment on this forum, Mark is aware of it as well
As I thought - can't answer or explain - just accuse
So here's further explanation from other research explaining the problem
It is obvious that those who actually design DACs to full implementation (not just modelling/simulation) know about these issues - others try their well practised BS on forums
Sorry I'm not a DAC guy, Martin, Dustin, Barrie Gilbert, and I were talking shortly after the release of the first ESS products. Barrie guessed at some of the issues and smiles were exchanged, they seemed to me to involve analog type issues but it's just outside my experience.
@mm - BTW Martin was sure I could hear them, he never mentioned to me he could not. I had no time to visit their site.
Defining something that involves abstract thought seems fodder for ridicule here......but how else do you move forward?
I thought abstract reasoning was critical in science.....alternatives to the concrete and all that jive?
You miss my point, for something to be researched it needs first to be defined, that is what Jakob said and I agree, would you rather continue with FUD?
No fud....just an observation.
It’s seems defined enough, just not labeled.
Maybe, ‘emotional responses in relation to sound/music reproduction’ ?
Last edited:
Perhaps, it would be nice to know if those doing the actual research consider that to be definition enough.
Here you are (PDF) Emoacoustics: A Study of the Psychoacoustical and Psychological Dimensions of Emotional Sound Design
Last edited:
I edited in /music .......that is more relevant.
.....I can tell by my wife’s emotional tone that I’d better get back to work!
I do not have any more time to argue on the internet today, so this will be my final post on this topic. I am going to recap for you so maybe you have a chance at understanding it.
The modulator in the DAC is entirely in the digital domain. It's behavior, including input, output, and all state variables can therefore be tested with arbitrary input signals ALL DAY LONG on a PC if the designers wanted. It is described by math entirely and none of this has anything to do with the 2nd order effects or other crap you came up with. If there is a problem with it, then they did not test it sufficiently.
Regarding the original point of this discussion - I already said several pages ago that what Mallinson says in his presentation is at odds with what JohnW claims. Mallinson is saying their Hyperstream modulator DOES NOT HAVE or reduces those problems that JohnW is claiming. One of them would seem to be wrong or embellishing, I don't know who and nor do I really care.
Literally the only thing you did was Google for the words Sigma Delta and problems and paste some crap from articles that you don't understand. I am not going to waste any more time or thought on this because it is clear that you don't even understand the very basics of digital audio and you are just going to come back with more BS because reality does not fit your agenda.
BTW I never even claimed to be an expert on this, but I know you sure aren't. I already told you to ping Marcel on this forum if you want an expert take.
Last edited:
!Thanks! Good find
No. He said words the effect that previous hearing research was good enough to learn how roughly 95% of the population hears. He said words to the effect that new tests would have to be developed if one wanted data on the remaining roughly 5%.
Thanks! Good find
Yes, it's very neat. Seems to go way beyond simple input/output testing of a digital modulator and looks like it can simulate entire ADC / DAC systems.
That's not what is said.
All that is said is that emotion or other subjective results are fine, until someone says their subjective position is correct, rather than just subjective. Then, they are rightly challenged.
He would be happy, since he replaced the Minor Threat lamb. BTW, W says hello.
This was revealed by that secret listening test performed which you swore to not disclose? OK.
Complicated? That may depend on who you ask. Costly? Only if you consider built-in DAC of typical blu-ray player and receivers expensive. I saw a new blu-ray player listed for under $100.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.