Tryphon, I think you misunderstood Scott’s post.
In his phrase, the adjective “blind” goes to the “ears only no instruments test”.
If you are interested, look at the operation of a semiconductor junction. It has enough of quantum physics in it.
SY provided methodology and results from tests that the manufacturer should have provided.
SY’s testing was based on manufacturer’s claims of what the product does within the audio band (although he had a look for the higher frequencies Cal's Bybee experience )
If someone claims his fart contains precious elements, what will you do?
Meanwhile, a useful reference for the years to come
Aristotle's Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
George
So, how come nobody has measured any change in noise or anything else, except for a little bit of resistance? If you are saying it does something people can hear, then what? Affect noise? Affect distortion? if so, how much? How would you propose to measure that?
And how would YOU measure the change in noise of a 0.025 ohm resistor? My test equipment can't measure that low.
I'm glad you didn't ask me.
I'd cut them off and put them on my string.
Kind of like notches on a gun stock etc.
It's the USMC re-kindling in me I guess.
Cheers,
"the" change? What change are you referring to?
EDIT: Sorry, but do you mean to imply that noise changes, but not distortion?
Human nature being what it is a change is often perceived as an improvement. Without measurement, saying something sounds better is meaningless. There may be an exception when it comes to how speakers interact with the room and our position psychoacoustically because this still seems difficult to measure and will differ from person to person due to their experience and preference amongst other things.
Blind listening can be a type of measurement, and for perceptually 'better' it might be the best type of measurement. Depends what we are tying to find out of course.
Wow, Frans - thanks for that link!
Just browsing the ads in the 196x editions got me maxed out on nostalgia!
Just browsing the ads in the 196x editions got me maxed out on nostalgia!
Ok, which sort of proves my point? I thought it could only determine if there is a difference?
No, the music is intended for the pleasure of our senses. The systems we build to reproduce it merely have to reproduce it as best they can. If you want added pleasure from your equipment (as some do) then reproduction is not your aim; a perfectly valid position to hold, but not the same position as those who merely want reproduction.Tournesol said:
You are confusing the art with the reproduction of that art.
To hear a capacitor you have to do one of two things:ridikas said:
1. drop it on the floor
2. put it in a circuit which is intended to maximise the audio effect of capacitor non-ideal behaviour - this is the opposite of a circuit intended to reproduce music
I suspect that writers of QM textbooks might wish to differ from this position. I would not wish to pay good money for a textbook which said "It's magic" on page 1 and didn't have a page 2.
Even a quantum component (e.g. a BJT) interacts with the circuit via normal classical laws of electromagnetism. Hence you can measure a quantum component using normal circuit theory and instrumentation. You only need QM to explain how the component works inside.
That means that, like John, you have less excuse.
That's interesting you claimed it removed noise in favor of signal (probably just because JB had that in the add copy) far above the noise level of the resistance.
I didn't say anything about resolution. With lots of trials, many participants, and statistics we could probably say more than if only using one trial with one person.
Also, if we want to measure how good something sounds to humans we would have to ask people about it wouldn't we? Can't ask the DVM that.
The concept of "just reproduction" looks reasonable/plausible, but as we have learned from past discussions it´s quite often an illusionary one.
Main reason is that nobody knows what a recorded content should sound or is intended to sound.
DF96 maintained in the past the assertion that the reproduction should sound like the "real thing" which means should sound as similar to an original soundfield as possible.
We have pointed out that this is not a generally agreed goal of recording and reproduction especially as any comparison with the "real thing" is seldom done.
As stated before, the assertion that within a framework that is so far away from reality a reproduction approach exists that will be the only valid one (wrt to every individual), seem to be misleading, as we know that the reproduction of traditional two channel stereo relies strongly on learned abilities of the listeners.
Furthermore the variability in recording/productin monitor rooms is surprisingly large (afair i´ve cited the according Genelec study before) and although the data might be dated (from around 2000-2001) we have to consider that tenthousands of records were produced under conditions that were more or less different from those we try to maintain today.
Main reason is that nobody knows what a recorded content should sound or is intended to sound.
DF96 maintained in the past the assertion that the reproduction should sound like the "real thing" which means should sound as similar to an original soundfield as possible.
We have pointed out that this is not a generally agreed goal of recording and reproduction especially as any comparison with the "real thing" is seldom done.
As stated before, the assertion that within a framework that is so far away from reality a reproduction approach exists that will be the only valid one (wrt to every individual), seem to be misleading, as we know that the reproduction of traditional two channel stereo relies strongly on learned abilities of the listeners.
Furthermore the variability in recording/productin monitor rooms is surprisingly large (afair i´ve cited the according Genelec study before) and although the data might be dated (from around 2000-2001) we have to consider that tenthousands of records were produced under conditions that were more or less different from those we try to maintain today.
Hi Jakob,
Agree in principle but if someone's preferred reproduction device adds 10% H2 to the signal, its not 'just reproduction' which I think was the point being made.
Agree in principle but if someone's preferred reproduction device adds 10% H2 to the signal, its not 'just reproduction' which I think was the point being made.
And you'd have to keep asking them. At what point do the instruments struggle to measure the signal?
Agree, recently I came across a group of folks very serious about capacitor sound and they predominantly listen to SET electronics and classic hi-efficiency speakers. In many cases their love of music and interesting variety of tastes was admirable.
To be sure things are not black and white, I have also found camps of subjectivists that share vitriol with each other as bad as any of the subjectivist vs. objectivist discussions here.
I was in Vienna for the AES in 1992, my wife loves opera so I got the $300 tickets to sit in 6th row center. Bob Adams and the rest of our crew got the $10 stand in the back and maybe find a seat tickets. We all got a real experience, which one do you reproduce?
Last edited:
I promenade when I go to the Albert hall. Not the best sound, but the experience is worth it.
I don't know how the Metropolitan Opera house ranks among such venues, but when I attended a couple of years ago I have to say the sound was wonderful, and it seemed like it was good everywhere in the hall. (We sat in the front row of the Balcony near the center.) I gather there are carels for students, ten bucks and you can't see the stage but the sound is still excellent (and you get a place to put your sheet music 🙂 ).
I cannot conceive of any other reasonable definition of "reproduction".Jakob2 said:
Comparison with the real thing is needed to determine what electrical parameters are required to achieve some reasonable degree of reproduction. Fortunately this has been done, so we know in outline what is needed; further refinement would be helpful. Of course, people interested in audio rarely compare with the real thing; some because this is difficult to achieve, and some because they are not really interested in reproduction at all.
It seems reasonable to start with some attempt at reproducing a voltage signal but with amplification. All engineering involves compromise; two channels is part of this compromise. It seems that two channels are much better than one at reproducing music, and three or more channels are not much better than two so two seems a good choice.
That is a matter of choice, but it does not mean that the concept of reproduction is meaningless.scott wurcer said:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.