Well, the example was showing that there are nonsubtle things that can be clearly extracted yet not heard. I don't see how having something that can be both extracted AND heard affects the discussion, or am I looking at this wrong?
Now if there were something that can be demonstrably and repeatedly heard, but not extracted by DiffMaker, then....
bwaslo said:
No, it's just that we are looking at this differently... To me it shows that the diff. artifacts in two tracks can be at similar level and make one track indistinguishable from it's original and the other pretty much audibly worse than the original.
john curl said:Vuki, don't test these people for hearing differences.
Since we have a suggested testing "machine" we should put it to good use. 😉
bwaslo said:
It seems you made a "universal weapon". Now finally the GE-subjectivists can say: Aha; didn't we tell you there is a difference when the CD is painted with green pen? The Diffmaker extracts some nice difference buried in the deeps of signal!" 😀
If anyone really wants to research the problem:
I recommend: "An Analysis of Certain Errors in Electronic Differential Analyzers II___Capacitor Dielectric Absorption" Paul C. Dow, Jr. 'IRE Transactions on Electronic Computers' pp. 17-? March, 1958.
I recommend: "An Analysis of Certain Errors in Electronic Differential Analyzers II___Capacitor Dielectric Absorption" Paul C. Dow, Jr. 'IRE Transactions on Electronic Computers' pp. 17-? March, 1958.
In my opinion it’s not very interesting to discuss if there are a Sousa band or a F1 racing car hidden in the noise, it’s in fact possible to hide everything in that noise.
The interesting issue is to look at the different parts in an amp that make a difference to the signal that we are trying to reproduce.
Cheers
Stinius
The interesting issue is to look at the different parts in an amp that make a difference to the signal that we are trying to reproduce.
Cheers
Stinius
janneman said:
Jan, thank you. That was beautifully said. Simple, and without excess histrionics.
Now, if I could ask for one more thing...
It would be quite helpful if you (and others who lean towards measurements) could restrict yourself/ves to one simple response when presented with something new:
"I have not tried (fill in the blank). I have no opinion."
Short, sweet, to the point, and most important, intellectually honest.
If you do try something, might I suggest one of the two following possibilities:
--"I have tried it, and I heard (fill in the blank, be it good or bad)."
--"I have tried it and was not able to hear any difference."
Again, a simple, intellectually honest report. I'm not asking you to lie.
To say "I tried it and did not hear any difference...therefore no one else can hear any difference, either," is not intellectually honest. There are too many alternate possibilities. Someone else's system might be better than yours, for instance. Or their ears might be better. Or they might have cleaner AC line power, which might allow someone with an otherwise similar system to resolve something you might not be able to hear, through no fault of your own. This is a great sticking point for a lot of people, but it's an important one.
In my case, I have never played with any sort of "magic dot." The only honest answer I can give is that I have no opinion as to whether they make any difference. I do not see how they could work, but that is not the same thing as saying that it is impossible that they might have some effect! That is an important distinction that seems to be lost on many people. Perhaps there's an explanation out there that I haven't heard. Or perhaps they work in spite of my raised eyebrow and no one knows why at this time.
The ability--the courage--to say, "I don't know" is one of the things that I see as a distinction between measurement-oriented people and listening-oriented people.
I'm hip-deep in articles about Darwin at this time, and one of the points that all the authors keep hammering is that Darwin had no concept of genes when he published his work. Gregor Mendel was doing his work at roughly the same moment in history, but Darwin was unaware of it, and could only shrug and say, "somehow" when asked for a mechanism as to how traits were passed from one generation to another. That did not mean he was wrong. It was simply something that had to wait for Mendel's work to be rediscovered, along with follow-up work by Watson and Crick, amongst many, many others. The work continues to this very day, but there's no longer any serious doubt that Darwin was right.
If it were left to many so-called 'scientific' members here, Darwin would have been hounded mercilessly because he was unable to offer a mechanism that would allow his mutation and selection process to function. For that matter, he was hounded. But that didn't mean he was wrong. It was a failure, not on his part, but on the part of those who were unable to accept that a functional framework can work without a complete understanding of the internal 'why' or 'how.' It was beyond their technology at the time to map the genome of creatures so as to watch the changes in DNA in real time.
So they reacted with scorn and anger because their belief structure was threatened...in short, it was a perfect example of Science as Religion. Just as we see here, today, on this website.
Grey
Well, yeah, but there aren't a lot of controls in that 'experiment'! They are two different music tracks, and different contamination information also. There is certainly something of interest going on there, though.
The choir recording is a pretty reverby background, that probably is significant. There is never a moment of silence because of the echoes. That was of course part of the reason for using that recording, a drum beat would certainly show up against any silent spot that might occur. I wonder whether an MP3/256k of the choir would be distinguishable from the original by ear.
That was the intention -- something to better open up the 'can of worms'! No matter what's in it.
I'd really be thrilled if someone could use DiffMaker to uncover a previously unexplained distortion, or anything considered to be "unexplainable". That would be a way to actually move forward in audio, rather than the long series of product "breakthroughs" we see now. There would be something new and more solid to look into and solve, and would be a way to tell when the problem has been fixed or not (other than by the fixer's opinion, which tends to be a little biased).
DM's never going to show that something was inaudible, that kind of thing isn't showable. It might show convincingly that nothing is really happening with something that people think is in a particular instance. For instance, the green pen thing, I'm pretty convinced there's nothing in it, not in the test instance I ran at least. But that too is from my personal judgment after listening to the Diff test of it. And who knows, maybe the conditions and setup weren't right then for making a green pen difference happen.
Joshua_G, we have to STOP that coincident thinking. They might think that we are 'telepathic' also! 
GRollins said:
Sure! I'll go first.
I have not tried (taking a dump on my living room floor to improve the sound). I have no opinion.
It is still an honest answer to say "I strongly doubt it", though, and to give basis for the doubt.
Every proposed tweak or effect is not on equal footing, nor equally worthy of taking the time to be tried out. Some astrologist also could possibly be genuinely accurate, but I don't need to go get a reading from every single one of them to find out if maybe there be one that is unlike all others past.
Next thing you know, there will be some closed-minded people saying that tweak can't work! The nerve of some people! 😀
Edmond Stuart said:
Polystyrene caps are good for equalisation circuits due to the tight tollerance.
Cheers,
Glen
andy_c said:
I've not tried it either, but I can cite at least three good reasons not to do so:
1) The smell
2) The cleanup afterwards
3) Potential health complications
None of which apply to choice of capacitors, for instance.
But your reaction and attitude are perfectly in line with my Fundamentalist-Creationist vs. Darwinian model.
Congratulations.
Grey
P.S.: One of the central figures in the Creationist/anti-evolution movement lives (unless he's moved...no such luck) about twenty or thirty miles up the road from me. He is very much in his element here in SC.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.