Très honoré, cher Prof. T. !
Maybe one day we should talk more about those Frenchies, here or in a separate thread. I've heard and liked the Elipson 4040, but I didn't think much of the single sphere one with a wideband band speaker an a reflector (forgot the model name).
I also know the Orthophase by reputation, but I've never heard them, nor seen any credible measurements of them.
Great, but nothing to do with EE. One can design speakers/monitors without having much of a clue regarding EE.
Not sure why you insist in tarnishing your well established reputation by getting into things you obviously have no clue about. I for one don't dare to challenge any speaker designer, not even at the DIY level, although I know the acoustics basic plot.
Well, I suppose we can just let all the audiophile BS run amok.
The mods can ban me, if I’m such a bad person ruining the pristine quality and civility of this forum.
I will not apologize for calling out absurd nonsense. Seems like I’ve struck a nerve with you.
Scott Wurcer may have been on the right track by considering filtering some bands out of real music reproduction and looking for residuals in the bands essentially empty of music.
Another engineer in the forum used a similar technique with his self-designed dac and FPGA fillter: https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/273474-dac-dac-201.html#post5783083
You're not the only one annoyed by the terrible signal to noise ratio we suffer here from time to time.
The AP is capable of multi-tone and custom ones at that. Pretty sure that covers what you’re getting at.
All things I would like so much we discuss here, instead of fighting about the correctness of our listening procedures ;-)
You just listed all and every things that i would like to learn more about.
By example, how can we measure the effects of EMI/RFI in the audio band of a 'all system' (speakers included). And how those are translated in our listening experiences.
"Supply incursion": How this affect the instant dynamic, in presence of a percussive sound etc.
Right, I am aware of that. Unfortunately, the tones are static amplitude. Not like music. In some cases such as with dacs a circuit has some memory effect of prior dynamics.
Ok, stop bickering about imaginary insults 😉 My turn to be hall monitor Mark 😛
Has this indefinible thing been measured or not? Tell you what T, define it.
Has this indefinible thing been measured or not? Tell you what T, define it.
Of course, tones, no matter how many, are still in the frequency domain.
However, your "memory effect" can be a great lead for further investigation.
Oh, please. Our measuring instruments are like exploring the universe with a huge telescope.
The most important question is not to increase their power of separation, but to know where to direct it.
The second one is to find an other measuring instrument, able to discover new or same things in other waves lengths that the first one was or was not not able to see.
This naive way of thinking is a disease, totally unscientific.
I recently see a documentary about several teams of scientists (real ones) exploring the inside of Pyramids with various methods (infra red, various Muon detectors, simulations specialists to validate their results etc.).
So happy when they had the confirmation of one of their results validated by an other method, so suspicious about the meaning of their own measurements before.
Last edited:
Its not mine. Transient thermal effects have been known for a long time, the only argument is about whether or not we measure them adequately. Also, state variable settling is known about in S-D dacs and DSD modulators, nothing new there either. Just a question of whether or not we should do a better job of measuring it. We know electrolytics can be modeled as RC ladder networks, but how we measure may not reveal some audible linear distortion (under some conditions). If we keep talking about this stuff, we get into questions of what people can hear and how good is good enough, etc. As Scott points out, some perceptual research never gets done, so we don't have data to proceed in the methodological ways engineers are trained to do.
Last edited:
First of all, I was responding to Mark.
Second, what the hell are you talking about? I am not trying to be insulting, I'd tell you that upfront. I genuinely have no clue what you mean and what you are getting at here.
Ok - you know what - forget it.
I posted a perfectly sane reply to Mark, which he sort-of agreed with despite pointing out a few valid differences. Then you come in with this barely decipherable paragraph of crap about telescopes and pyramids. All because you don't take the time to READ and understand who is talking to whom.
Last edited:
T does that... I put it down to hallucinogens, or, more likely, things very much lost in translation!
Meanwhile - please keep calling out the BS when you see it!
Absolutely no harm in keeping folk on their toes, and everyone here should have a thick skin. It would get very boring if there was no contention - it's what helps promote progress!
What was the context of the listening test, listening only to the noise in the previously empty bands or with everything? With the masking of the LP noise (-58dB), it would hard to claim adding -92dB of additional noise is audible (~.0004dB difference).
I never got beyond interesting information with this technique, the goal was to try and show the possibility of the noise created in the blank spaces being different than that predicted by conventional measurements. Another possibility is that the growth and decay of the noise floor in the empty spaces shows something unexpected.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.