I had to look Chillum up no idea what it was. I bet they would make good cable lifters and you could tune with different smoking material.
What about cable lifters or enclosure damping with plants? 😀
I wonder what flavor shrooms could impart? Surely beneficial for early Pink Floyd reproduction.
I figured you would be familiar with all the Jefferson Airplane lyrics. Max is out there in orbit 48.
I searched and couldn't find those lyrics in any JA songs.....so which orbit were you on at the time ?. BTW, I googled Orbit 48 and found this....seems like your kind of 'music' ?. Scott by your posts it seems that you listen only to punk/noise/industrial stuff ?. If this is true how do you expect to be able to judge any audio systems or discern fine changes after your ears have been so assaulted, serious question ?. I make sure to keep my feet firmly planted on terra firma, like I have said I walk the household dogs daily and in bare feet and for this reason......when did you last garden or go for a nature walk in bare feet and fully experience the contact and 'tune in'?.
Dan.
Last edited:
Even if you consider industrial to be unpleasant noise, I don’t see why it would be any harder to evaluate with than any other music. You’re all about the noise, no? It should be a good test to see if the noise sounds different than one expects. One man’s noise is another man’s music. Some people think Metallica is offensive noise, and plenty of others think it’s mass produced pop compared to something like Sunn O))).
There is a small difference - we know how the white noise or pink noise should sound, especially in case we have some experience with it 😉
Narrow band modulated noise is an excellent signal to hear non-linearities.
Narrow band modulated noise is an excellent signal to hear non-linearities.
@ PMA,
we share the discomfort about the strange fact that a lot of these discussions are running in circles (sometimes over years, even decades).
So, wouldn't it be great, if we could settle (at least) the dispute about Oohashi (high frequency detection by intermodulation) ?
The last two posts:
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part III
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part III
we share the discomfort about the strange fact that a lot of these discussions are running in circles (sometimes over years, even decades).
So, wouldn't it be great, if we could settle (at least) the dispute about Oohashi (high frequency detection by intermodulation) ?
The last two posts:
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part III
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part III
I would rather like to follow my previous post and bring some evidence. The test signal is a narrow-band noise (1000Hz - 1300Hz) which is unaffected in one file and the 2nd file has a special low-level distortion, spectrum of which may be seen in the attached image. If the test is performed on the pure sine, the files are indistinguishable. Tested on narrow band noise the difference is clear. Link to files below, this time no ABX is requested.
http://pmacura.cz/noise_test.zip
Attachments
@ Tournesol,
"transparency" (although not a general engineering term) wrt measurement would mean, that (beside the designed manipulation of an input signal like change of level) no difference exists between input and output signal.
Wrt reproduction of sound, the term "transparency" means that insertion of a certain kind of gear in a chain does not lead to an audible difference, so correctly it should be "auditory transparency" .
So it gets a bit complicated due to the relation to human perception. Not detectable by average listener, not detectable by a specific listener, not detectable by _any_ human?
The goal for the reproduction of sound isn´t that well defined (or agreed by all parties) as PMA seems to state.
His version of the goal is an arbitrarily choosen reference point, which is not well defined - as it relates to the recorded content, that we don´t know - which must be reproduced by a system that by definition is declared as neutral if it is linear.
An approach that might be correct for some recordings, will be totally off for others - for all the reasons we have already discussed broadly in this and other threads - and does not reflect the point of view that you've mentioned, i.e. that basically the sound at the production facility will be the best reference for this theory about reproduction of sound.
And it does not reflect that there is another school of thought where the reproduction should evoke a listening impression as similar as possible to the perception a listener would have had when attending the original event.
"transparency" (although not a general engineering term) wrt measurement would mean, that (beside the designed manipulation of an input signal like change of level) no difference exists between input and output signal.
Wrt reproduction of sound, the term "transparency" means that insertion of a certain kind of gear in a chain does not lead to an audible difference, so correctly it should be "auditory transparency" .
So it gets a bit complicated due to the relation to human perception. Not detectable by average listener, not detectable by a specific listener, not detectable by _any_ human?
The goal for the reproduction of sound isn´t that well defined (or agreed by all parties) as PMA seems to state.
His version of the goal is an arbitrarily choosen reference point, which is not well defined - as it relates to the recorded content, that we don´t know - which must be reproduced by a system that by definition is declared as neutral if it is linear.
An approach that might be correct for some recordings, will be totally off for others - for all the reasons we have already discussed broadly in this and other threads - and does not reflect the point of view that you've mentioned, i.e. that basically the sound at the production facility will be the best reference for this theory about reproduction of sound.
And it does not reflect that there is another school of thought where the reproduction should evoke a listening impression as similar as possible to the perception a listener would have had when attending the original event.
That's right, however there is no universal improver that would make all recordings sounding "nice" to everyone. For this reason, which is very important to me and obviously to many others, me and many others prefer the "transparency" approach to some golden grail improving mantra. Thus also a disagreement on some audio components - I personally dislike the "sound" of simple Pass DIY amplifiers, e.g., or SE valve amplifiers.
Even all recordings sounding "nice" to oneself is impossible. Too many trade offs, especially with simple circuits. There are two different cases. One is where we have to determine that the mistake is outside of the amplifier (poor recordings, speakers, rooms, etc.); here we should not sacrifice the 'accuracy' of the amplifier. Two is where there are unavoidable trade offs in amplifier design.
TBH I just use them for system EQ in the bass region and HF hearing loss, rarely touch them for different recordings, CBA 😉
Last edited:
As you were referring to an universal goal of reproduction (or weren't you and i was mistaken? ) I'm wondering where the "nice" fits in, as "correct reproduction" was (seemed to be) in that context an objective criterion while "nice" surely is not.
No debate, as stated "numerous" times before, on an individual basis everybody has to find out what works best ..... 🙂
Repeated exposure to noise type sounds alters hearing sensitivity due to the ears 'protecting' and this hearing response alteration can take quite some time to return to normal.
How does one design for "transparency" if the various components of transparency involve trade-offs? How does one optimize the trade-off to make the result "most-transparent"?
That is exactly what I'm working on now (not auditory perception), and in my work, the answer is not to attempt to make each error as close to perceptual thresholds as possible, rather to determine which combination of errors is most tolerated by the brain as "transparent" enough for the goal.
This sounds like usual business advice to "match" the components for the best sound. Like "if you buy our XX power amplifier, you should also buy our YY preamplifier to get the best sound". Is that what you are saying? 😀
- Status
- Not open for further replies.