That one was a black poor devil, RIP
Now our Mauro is a sharp-eared guard (here is two hours after the castration operation, poor guy)
Again and again till the sun sets 😉
George
Attachments
No, how could something 'make more music' depending on equipment?? That's daft!
Is a van Gogh more or less artistic depending on the frame? "That Rembrand would be a great picture if it wasn't for the frame" ?
Great music is great music, even on the bedside clock radio.
Jan
Last edited:
Yes, Jan, and driving though Big Sur (Calif) is pleasurable in a Renault Dauphine as well as a Porsche.
THD goes up with higher value of loading. = Ohms has the lowest THD.
Subjectively, not sure there is a consensus about that. Some say bass is better with lowest loading.
Subjectively, not sure there is a consensus about that. Some say bass is better with lowest loading.
In the future an extended profile might be part of meta data delivered together with a recording which could enable much better reproduction even of older recordings.
But today we don´t know (most often) in what specific conditions a production took place.
We only know that Genelec once found a surprisingly large variation in linearity (surprising at least to me) over an extended range of locations all equipped with the same (factory calibrated) loudspeaker system and all measured with exactly the same measurement gear, done by the same person.
Imo if we don´t know about the conditions during the recording/mixing/production we can´t conclude about the reproduction approach offering the most accurate musical content presentation.
@ gpapag,
the deaf cat line wasn´t written by me......
I am discussing with the producer. They have admitted something, but not enough. They do not meet the tech specs that they declare in the manual and on the web site. If they do not change their approach to a more positive one, I will disclose the company and the product.
Which is quite funny as it implies that other manufacturers (in the majority?) are really trying to figure out if there products "sound like the real thing" and are using (large scale?) controlled (even blind) listening tests.
I have my doubts though..... 😎
That you don´t need an "ABX" (i´d say in most cases you never need an ABX but maybe another test protocol more appropriate, but that depends on the research question) to detect the obvious looks like a reasonable assumption but if you use controlled tests in those cases you get surprising results anyway.
Obviously the participants didn´t have to be blind to miss the "gorilla" in our midst:
The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us
Depending on the specific conditions of the different tests a proportion of 30 to ~ 50% of participants did not detect the "gorilla" .
And it didn´t only work that way in the case of inattentional blindness but in later experiments for inattentional deafness as well.
So it is quite safe to conclude that even quite large (even easily measured ones) difference could remain undetected as it depends strongly on the participants and the sort of statistical analysis.
Low-distortion Audio-range Oscillator
PMA, your comments about the C0G caps misbehaving seems to run contrary to what this says (even if Victor did find them to be marginally inferior). Or is this really a case of size as well, given you're talking about a 4.7 uF part instead of a 100 nF?
PMA, your comments about the C0G caps misbehaving seems to run contrary to what this says (even if Victor did find them to be marginally inferior). Or is this really a case of size as well, given you're talking about a 4.7 uF part instead of a 100 nF?
Jacob
Thank you for pointing it to me and I am sorry for the mistake .
I corrected the origin of the quote.
George
Okay, did I misunderstand through all the back and forth that the coupling cap in use is actually a x5r/x7r? Mea culpa, there was a bunch of ambiguous posts.
Yes, it was MLCC X7R. MLCC does not automatically mean NPO/COG. Sorry for being sharp, but you were the second one after short time with the same suggestion.
What would the question be? It's going to have to be subjective. For instance, which is the "better" sounding, that's good enough!
As for the test protocol, forgive me I've no experience and not sure what it means. However, let us assume that everyone involved genuinely wants to find out what it is that makes one piece of equipment sound "better" than another, what would be a way to proceed?
Exactly! Driving through Big Sur to enjoy Big Sur is about Big Sur, NOT about the car!
Can't believe you agree with me😱 . Made my day John!
Jan
Last edited:
I don't think that is possible simply because you can't define what it means to 'sound better' . All these tests are generally designed to find out whether something sounds different from something else. What is 'better' is personal and can differ from one person to another without ill effect!
Jan
Let me clarify my post #860. The THD plot I made was with whatever I could put together. The oscillator was a Sound Technology with an external L/C filter and the signal (7V rms, 600 Ohms, at 20kHz) was notched in both plots so this shows relative reduction of THD. To get absolute THD you need to undo the notch's frequency response. -105dB was pretty good in the day at these extremes, good enough to make a -130dB oscillator at 1kHz.
I gather from the other offhand comments about feedback, etc. there might be another agenda afoot. Please not the feedback goes round and round and can't stop what has gone before.
I gather from the other offhand comments about feedback, etc. there might be another agenda afoot. Please not the feedback goes round and round and can't stop what has gone before.
@ Jan, I know, this is the limitation of the ABX test, which I think Jakob2 is implying is not particularly useful. We can't escape the subjectivity, let's embrace it instead!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.