Richard, you have been living with your goopified DAC-3 for a week or more, now the honeymoon is over what are your longer term listening impressions ?.
Dan.
Dan.
It's always a great joy to see a real teacher at work. Your posts stretch and correct, very much like a good dance or combat instructor. You're (with a few select others) worth the (considerable) noise of the thread, and to the point that it's really valuable, for me anyways.
Much thanks, as always,
Chris
Ah, basically you wanted to point out that "concurrently" was the wrong descriptor as the known time resolution (somewhere between ~2 - 10 us) isn't "concurrently" enough, and that it further principially can´t be "concurrently" due to the uncertainty principle, right?
And of course it has to be combined with a "cheap shot", mhm? 😉
Sure that you don't use the demand for exactitude quite selectively?
Go ahead, it surely would help to address some of these along with some explanations and raise the understanding; I bet that it would be a reilef among the now common "lack of knowledge" shouting....
Shouting? I hope you're not trolling. Let me guess, when you refer to lack of knowledge you are meaning as regards psychoacoustics?
With "Lack of knowledge shouting" I tried to convey my (subjective) impression that posts not containing a "your lack of knowledge is......" line are really rare nowadays.
That may be so, but there is usually a reason for most things. It also depends what lack of knowledge you are referring to (because I believe you have something specific in mind)
Even better if he could try recording the sound in the room, see if the difference is audible in a recording... Then we could all share the difference, that would be fascinating 🙂
No, it really isn't....
I think the reasons are, lack of good will, lack of manners and blindness to one's own lack of knowledge; you know:
He, who is without lack of knowledge, cast the first stone. 🙂
From the current online version of Encyclopaedia Britannica:
Sound - Noise | Britannica.com
"The ear actually functions as a type of Fourier analysis device, with the mechanism of the inner ear converting mechanical waves into electrical impulses that describe the intensity of the sound as a function of frequency."
And:
"The ear is responsive to the periodicity of a wave, so that it will hear the frequency of a complex wave as that of the fundamental whether or not the fundamental is actually present as a component in the wave, although the wave will have a different timbre than it would were the fundamental actually present."
Sound - Noise | Britannica.com
"The ear actually functions as a type of Fourier analysis device, with the mechanism of the inner ear converting mechanical waves into electrical impulses that describe the intensity of the sound as a function of frequency."
And:
"The ear is responsive to the periodicity of a wave, so that it will hear the frequency of a complex wave as that of the fundamental whether or not the fundamental is actually present as a component in the wave, although the wave will have a different timbre than it would were the fundamental actually present."
That is without doubt true, there is evidence. It could also be lack of knowledge (it's not a crime) it depends what you are talking about😉
Hi,
I have been soooo busy moving that I have not been able to do much more listening. However, I will leave it on playing something in background mode until I can get back to serious (?) listening again.
-Richard
This is a public forum, I am allowed to comment, did you miss the value of my comment (I'm guessing so for reasons you probably know)? Just in case, since a difference is often perceived as an improvement, it would be more useful to do the comparison again IMHO.
Please refrain from sending me private messages in an attempt to censor me, I shall not respond to them, you have already said what you wanted to say here, which is fine, no need to repeat yourself 🙄
Last edited:
Ok, enjoy the background listening which ime is actually the best indicator, most of my listening is at low to mid/warm level, same as most households. I look forward to your report on this kind of listening, your spouse's opinion is appreciated too. I am sure you packing and moving is lotsa fun, good luck in the new place OS.
Dan.
That's why I've written in a recent posts that the current model indiciates/includes such kind of transforms (some might remember the "spectral decomposition" mentioned in my post to the topic "connections of high frequency hearing loss and perception of bass attack").
This spectral decomposition takes place (must take place) due to the fact that processes on a cellular basis need time and the typical time frame is around ms, so one can not expect neurons firing every 60 us (for example), therefore some spectral decomposition must be present to encode the faster information in a channel of lower bandwidth.
At that point the so-called tonotopical mapping, that mmerrill99 mentioned, comes into play.
But, and I think that's the reason (or one of the reasons besides the egos 🙂 ) for the ongoing misunderstandings (or fights), in a general sense we are talking about models for our hearing sense.
And basically there exist two different kinds of models, so-called "bottom up" and "top down".
"Bottom-up" means in this case using the actual physiological mechanism for modelling purposes while "top-down" means using the functional response for modelling purposes without caring about the physiological details.
If people try to discuss about "hearing" but don't agree about the models (or level that is modelled) chances are high that it won't work well. Imo the discussions in this thread about "hearing" reflect this problem quite clearly.
If one is talking about "audiotory perception" it is about high level processes where conscious and automated processes of the brain/mind combination are involved, while talking about the cochlea (or more general the physological apparatus) is a low level area and there is a lot in between.......
Last edited:
What you have drawn from is this:-
'Let Him Who Is Without Sin Cast the First Stone'
As I understand, it is a quote from somewhere within the Bible ........ OK, but instead of saying what you really mean, you obfuscate it.
Please try harder.
Like you have done with your last post! - at last 
almost there, keep it up. 🙂
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.