Stinius, exactly. Nothing there about political correctness or peer pressure or engineering boundaries or any of those other misrepresentations. Just a simple statement of reality- a properly controlled test would be necessary for me to make a fact-claim. Anecdote is worthless, no matter who the source.
JPV said:
Another related topic is the connection of balanced sources to unbalanced inputs. Balanced to balanced is easy: the two signal wires carry the signal, and the (pin 1) screen makes sure that the chassis of the two pieces of equipment are at similar potential. Then, when the lines and i/o impedances are truly balanced 1) , all noise and interference on the interlink is identical on each signal line and the differential receiver cancels that noise etc.
But if you go to unbalanced, one of the signal lines is connected to the screen at the receiver end, and that combo is connected to *something-earth* at the receiver. Chassis? signal gnd? power gnd? What's your strategy in this?
Jan Didden
1) {I take it as a given in this forum that people know that balanced lines means balanced wrt impedances, and that it has nothing to do with the balance or not of the signals on the line, which has no inpact whatsoever on the balanced line's ability to let the receiver cancel the noise, hum and buzz.}
In this area, I have to make my position clear. I would LOVE to have either a COMPLETE SET of measurements that told me whether something will sound just about perfect, AND a PERFECT way of listening back, so that I can get direct feedback from listening differences, and everyone would believe me, AND I could rely on it, myself, 100%.
Unfortunately, this just doesn't seem to be possible at the moment.
ABX or most other DB tests, tend to obscure differences. I can't operate within their limited range and sensitivity.
Measurements are getting better, BUT still lack many of the dimensional qualities mentioned to me by Richard Heyser 40 years ago. Perhaps, when digital becomes virtually 'perfect', then we can use digitally based equipment to do PERFECT differential comparisons of real music, and then sort out the differences. So far, only half-baked solutions are offered, at least to me.
I will still have to trust in myself, and my trusted associates, that we are not fooling ourselves when comparing design approaches, in amp, preamp and EVEN wire design. I don't have any other way of moving forward, and forward I have moved, since this ABX, DB controversy started 30 years ago.
Unfortunately, this just doesn't seem to be possible at the moment.
ABX or most other DB tests, tend to obscure differences. I can't operate within their limited range and sensitivity.
Measurements are getting better, BUT still lack many of the dimensional qualities mentioned to me by Richard Heyser 40 years ago. Perhaps, when digital becomes virtually 'perfect', then we can use digitally based equipment to do PERFECT differential comparisons of real music, and then sort out the differences. So far, only half-baked solutions are offered, at least to me.
I will still have to trust in myself, and my trusted associates, that we are not fooling ourselves when comparing design approaches, in amp, preamp and EVEN wire design. I don't have any other way of moving forward, and forward I have moved, since this ABX, DB controversy started 30 years ago.
John, have you had a chance to look at Audio Diffmaker?
For instrance, you can listen to tracks played through a good quality film cap and the same track through a ceramic one, and listen to the difference.
Jan Didden
For instrance, you can listen to tracks played through a good quality film cap and the same track through a ceramic one, and listen to the difference.
Jan Didden
john curl said:
You could do the Listener Challenge . Good chance to establish superior listening capabilities once and for all. A golden opportunity!
I tried at the AES convention presentation. I couldn'd figure out which was which.
Jan Didden
Not good enough, Jan. I make my living by HEARING and MEASURING differences, not being shown that I 'can't' tell any differences in a specific set-up.
Until we get to at least SACD level, and perhaps more, we will not have adequate measuring equipment. I have debated with the designer of this latest differential comparison system in the past, already.
Until we get to at least SACD level, and perhaps more, we will not have adequate measuring equipment. I have debated with the designer of this latest differential comparison system in the past, already.
john curl said:
Nobody want to show anything. We have two tracks with clearly measurable differences, and clearly audible differences. We also know what the 'contamination' is that is in one of them. We know, can measure and can hear the 'contamination'. The task is just to tell which of the two is the contaminated one.
And remember: we can clearly hear that contamination, and we can clearly measure it.
So, don't give us that 'not good enough' bull.
Jan Didden
I'm sorry, but I have to keep my standards very high.
About 35 years ago, (I know, I know) we tried this very test with a 50KHz clock and 10bits with a PDP11-035 mini-computer. We found nothing in electronics for the most part. John Meyer, working with me on this testing, became 'convinced' that electronics didn't count, at this time, because it was so easy to compare differences in acoustical devices. He is still convinced, today, that I am 'way over the top'. So be it.
Today, I can do 13 bits and a 256KHz clock rate with a measurement precision of .001dB. Is that good enough? I don't think so.
However, 24 bits and 500KHz would get me interested.
About 35 years ago, (I know, I know) we tried this very test with a 50KHz clock and 10bits with a PDP11-035 mini-computer. We found nothing in electronics for the most part. John Meyer, working with me on this testing, became 'convinced' that electronics didn't count, at this time, because it was so easy to compare differences in acoustical devices. He is still convinced, today, that I am 'way over the top'. So be it.
Today, I can do 13 bits and a 256KHz clock rate with a measurement precision of .001dB. Is that good enough? I don't think so.
However, 24 bits and 500KHz would get me interested.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.