Thats in our firmware. But after 3 days your perception has changed too.
I strongly disagree with that. I've build enough cabinets to know.
The side you knock on at 1:05 in your Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNO7XChJ5iM
can swing more free than that in 1:10
At 1:05 it sounds typical for a 2 side unglued panel of this size.
It seems you compare oranges and pees.
Sounds very different from concrete in you vid. I also do the knuckle test on my cabinets because i like good feelings ;-) but it is different from Drivers stimulation.
Thats practical quantum mechanics
hehehe..
That panel in the vid has 4 3/4" internal MDF braces all glued with Locktigh molding/paneling adhesive and that side has 40 x 1-5/8 brass predrilled deck screws. But all that stiffness makes its more resonate at higher frequencies. Becasue of all the internal cross bracing the back panel made little if any difference. As I mentioned it made it worse because it created closed internal cavities that had resonance.
Im tellin ya. The sand made a HUGE difference. ( s i g h ).. hehehehe...
Eldam,,, all good points.
Having spent years doing psychoacoustic research in addition to traditional engineering (this was no coincidence ), it is startlingly obvious that burn-in is 100% real. Scientifically? No. Mathematically? No. Cognitively? Yes. You guys owe it to yourself to get a few texts on auditory neuroscience (there are a few high level ones I could recommend if so) to understand exactly how terribly fallible our ears are.
There are so many incredible phenomena related to the auditory pathways in the brain, and it is no coincidence that every single action you perform, be it taking a breath or blinking, causes the entire brain to light up. Every single thing you do is due to a summation of impulses to truly every portion of your brain. Of all of your senses, hearing is the most fallible, followed closely by sight. No matter who you are, or how much training you have, if you see a speaker cabinet made of chipped and stained MDF being driven by equipment in rusted boxes all in a room with torn up carpet and bad lighting, it will always sound worse than the exact same system in a flawless listening room with a stack of gleaming equipment with thick interconnects and gorgeously finished cabinets. Both systems and rooms measure exactly the same, but the sight that one is worse means it sounds worse. Same happens with video. You watch a movie through a projector at 480p, and the same video on a flawless screen at 1080p, and the one with better video will sound better even if the audio equipment is the same. You automatically assume the audio quality is worse solely based on what you see. You cannot fight these perceptions, no matter how much training you have. Everything is so tightly woven up in your noggin that burn in becomes a real thing. The reason we can't measure it is because we cannot measure perception. There is no coincidence that trained listeners to this day have not excelled at choosing $5k speaker cable over zip cord when they are unable to see anything and have no idea what they're listening to or for.
To make a long story short, saying that you trust your ears is as good as it gets. You just have to understand that in many cases, your ears are not going to tell you the truth because everything else colludes your perception. Unlike burn in, this, however, has been proven hundreds of times over decades. That therefore means, however, that burn-in has also been proven to be real hundreds of times over decades. It's true for the people who experience it, and they truly are not wrong.
), it is startlingly obvious that burn-in is 100% real. Scientifically? No. Mathematically? No. Cognitively? Yes. You guys owe it to yourself to get a few texts on auditory neuroscience (there are a few high level ones I could recommend if so) to understand exactly how terribly fallible our ears are. There are so many incredible phenomena related to the auditory pathways in the brain, and it is no coincidence that every single action you perform, be it taking a breath or blinking, causes the entire brain to light up. Every single thing you do is due to a summation of impulses to truly every portion of your brain. Of all of your senses, hearing is the most fallible, followed closely by sight. No matter who you are, or how much training you have, if you see a speaker cabinet made of chipped and stained MDF being driven by equipment in rusted boxes all in a room with torn up carpet and bad lighting, it will always sound worse than the exact same system in a flawless listening room with a stack of gleaming equipment with thick interconnects and gorgeously finished cabinets. Both systems and rooms measure exactly the same, but the sight that one is worse means it sounds worse. Same happens with video. You watch a movie through a projector at 480p, and the same video on a flawless screen at 1080p, and the one with better video will sound better even if the audio equipment is the same. You automatically assume the audio quality is worse solely based on what you see. You cannot fight these perceptions, no matter how much training you have. Everything is so tightly woven up in your noggin that burn in becomes a real thing. The reason we can't measure it is because we cannot measure perception. There is no coincidence that trained listeners to this day have not excelled at choosing $5k speaker cable over zip cord when they are unable to see anything and have no idea what they're listening to or for.
To make a long story short, saying that you trust your ears is as good as it gets. You just have to understand that in many cases, your ears are not going to tell you the truth because everything else colludes your perception. Unlike burn in, this, however, has been proven hundreds of times over decades. That therefore means, however, that burn-in has also been proven to be real hundreds of times over decades. It's true for the people who experience it, and they truly are not wrong.
yES yES, please recommend few readings. Thank you for that.
What about blind test with lambda people choosed by chance (not customers, not reviews writters)?
Yous have to laugh very often at reading Diyaudio threads . If you have no pills, go to the end of the text for the questions i have to you.
It's true that our hobby is strange. We want to have an equal perception to reality that is the work of the sound engineer which reccording something that is not the reproduction of a constant truth. We know it. We want burn in our caps, wires,ears of our friends and family like musicians burn in their violin (more humidity and heat effects on the wood in time of course!). Interresting tests made with modern violins who sound like stradivarius prove it ! An american women prove that 50 years before and know how to tune a bad violin to make an excelent one. (have you a pdf of his book, impossible to find it nowadays). seen that in La revue de l'Audiophile, french magazin.
But do we have to back to sony walkman ? There are some difference and we have to prioritize. It's like cars : you buy if you can expensive ones and it's not to go between A and B point... and the fact you take more pleasure for the same transport result with two different cars is a fact. The same with hifi, there is something psychanalatical : the more exotic and strong and rare in the living room the more the listener pleasure ! The sand is more relaxing, most of the time more when he burns your feets on a beach. And the psichanalyst knows that if you spend money for sand for your speakers you denied that you need to spend more for going to holiday on the beach. N Pass is maybe laughing himself when he writes Silmic 2 are the best caps for outputs powersupply or something like that (sure his how-to is far better than this sort of claim). But we hear it.
Music is not a copy of the reality but an estethical interpretation of the sounds, hearing music is an esthetical interpretation (like everything with perception, brain and culture- individual story- is the 50%... Husserl and many said that before) and we want like frustrated artist tune, set up theses perceptions.
Diyers want get value for their money but don't go back to sony walkman but clone sometimes expensive inafordable models. They don't want to give their money to a psychanalist about their hobby feelings cause they are frightened this last to have a better hifi system ! Yes yes Audiiophiles are monomaniacs and cheat with the idea of death...why spending so much time for an idea of absolute sounding reproduction which is a reproduction of something unreal ? But we know it.
Two answers maybe : because we have time to do that and because like an artist you don't stop to paint after your first painting... all the engineers here are more poet and artist than they think and i surmise most of them here know it ! They love music too and they deal with scientific thoughs to paint their "sound painting" hifi systems... the last but not the least as we are crasy we are too serious collectors (with systems and with failures)
We have maybe to spent more time to educate reccording engineers and spent less time with sand on the carpet and psychological apprehension of money in hifi. For myself I prioritize : not to much time for the goal, plain conscience that i waste time but like it as a hobby and spent time too with music and switch off the most I can the "frustrated engineer perfection goal" because already know it's the Sysiph myth. always here ?
The end of the text:
After all my two cents blue funny (or not) blabla (two colors ...I'm an artist, a fairly poet): i have a question to you : are we all just trying to deal just with pair and impair distorsion harmonics to find an esthetical deal that our "ears-brain"+culture appreciate in our living rooms ? (If removing the though that we want all expensive cars too in our living rooms!)
If easthetic is easthetic, did you measure F2 & F3 harmonics level with listening impression between pleasent and accurate factors ? And how to deal with it in sound reccording and reproduction ?
I need sand
to stay on t(r)opic !
What about blind test with lambda people choosed by chance (not customers, not reviews writters)?
Yous have to laugh very often at reading Diyaudio threads
. If you have no pills, go to the end of the text for the questions i have to you.It's true that our hobby is strange. We want to have an equal perception to reality that is the work of the sound engineer which reccording something that is not the reproduction of a constant truth. We know it. We want burn in our caps, wires,ears of our friends and family like musicians burn in their violin (more humidity and heat effects on the wood in time of course!). Interresting tests made with modern violins who sound like stradivarius prove it ! An american women prove that 50 years before and know how to tune a bad violin to make an excelent one. (have you a pdf of his book, impossible to find it nowadays). seen that in La revue de l'Audiophile, french magazin.
But do we have to back to sony walkman ? There are some difference and we have to prioritize. It's like cars : you buy if you can expensive ones and it's not to go between A and B point... and the fact you take more pleasure for the same transport result with two different cars is a fact. The same with hifi, there is something psychanalatical : the more exotic and strong and rare in the living room the more the listener pleasure ! The sand is more relaxing, most of the time more when he burns your feets on a beach. And the psichanalyst knows that if you spend money for sand for your speakers you denied that you need to spend more for going to holiday on the beach. N Pass is maybe laughing himself when he writes Silmic 2 are the best caps for outputs powersupply or something like that (sure his how-to is far better than this sort of claim). But we hear it.
Music is not a copy of the reality but an estethical interpretation of the sounds, hearing music is an esthetical interpretation (like everything with perception, brain and culture- individual story- is the 50%... Husserl and many said that before) and we want like frustrated artist tune, set up theses perceptions.
Diyers want get value for their money but don't go back to sony walkman but clone sometimes expensive inafordable models. They don't want to give their money to a psychanalist about their hobby feelings cause they are frightened this last to have a better hifi system ! Yes yes Audiiophiles are monomaniacs and cheat with the idea of death...why spending so much time for an idea of absolute sounding reproduction which is a reproduction of something unreal ? But we know it.
Two answers maybe : because we have time to do that and because like an artist you don't stop to paint after your first painting... all the engineers here are more poet and artist than they think and i surmise most of them here know it ! They love music too and they deal with scientific thoughs to paint their "sound painting" hifi systems... the last but not the least as we are crasy we are too serious collectors (with systems and with failures)
We have maybe to spent more time to educate reccording engineers and spent less time with sand on the carpet and psychological apprehension of money in hifi. For myself I prioritize : not to much time for the goal, plain conscience that i waste time but like it as a hobby and spent time too with music and switch off the most I can the "frustrated engineer perfection goal" because already know it's the Sysiph myth.
always here ?The end of the text:
After all my two cents blue funny (or not) blabla (two colors ...I'm an artist, a fairly poet): i have a question to you : are we all just trying to deal just with pair and impair distorsion harmonics to find an esthetical deal that our "ears-brain"+culture appreciate in our living rooms ? (If removing the though that we want all expensive cars too in our living rooms!)
If easthetic is easthetic, did you measure F2 & F3 harmonics level with listening impression between pleasent and accurate factors ? And how to deal with it in sound reccording and reproduction ?
I need sand
to stay on t(r)opic !
Having spent years doing psychoacoustic research in addition to traditional engineering (this was no coincidence
There are so many incredible phenomena related to the auditory pathways in the brain, and it is no coincidence that every single action you perform, be it taking a breath or blinking, causes the entire brain to light up. Every single thing you do is due to a summation of impulses to truly every portion of your brain. Of all of your senses, hearing is the most fallible, followed closely by sight. No matter who you are, or how much training you have, if you see a speaker cabinet made of chipped and stained MDF being driven by equipment in rusted boxes all in a room with torn up carpet and bad lighting, it will always sound worse than the exact same system in a flawless listening room with a stack of gleaming equipment with thick interconnects and gorgeously finished cabinets. Both systems and rooms measure exactly the same, but the sight that one is worse means it sounds worse. Same happens with video. You watch a movie through a projector at 480p, and the same video on a flawless screen at 1080p, and the one with better video will sound better even if the audio equipment is the same. You automatically assume the audio quality is worse solely based on what you see. You cannot fight these perceptions, no matter how much training you have. Everything is so tightly woven up in your noggin that burn in becomes a real thing. The reason we can't measure it is because we cannot measure perception. There is no coincidence that trained listeners to this day have not excelled at choosing $5k speaker cable over zip cord when they are unable to see anything and have no idea what they're listening to or for.
To make a long story short, saying that you trust your ears is as good as it gets. You just have to understand that in many cases, your ears are not going to tell you the truth because everything else colludes your perception. Unlike burn in, this, however, has been proven hundreds of times over decades. That therefore means, however, that burn-in has also been proven to be real hundreds of times over decades. It's true for the people who experience it, and they truly are not wrong.
Good points.
I actually think a lot of the debate surrounding this kind of thing has to do with different conceptions of what we take 'sound' to be. Those who focus on measurements, mathematical models, and such take sound to be nothing other than sound waves. They also tend to think that we can have some direct relation to 'sound' as if it were a direct, unmediated percept that we can experience/know prior to any moment or act of synthesis or interpretation.
But sound by its very nature is something we hear, and while sound waves play a vital and constitutive role in making the sounds we hear possible, to try and reduce sound as heard to sound waves as direct, pre-conceptual percept is highly problematic. How something sounds to us is part of a complex interpretative, synthetic process that involves a varied host of relational conditions. In fact, I would argue that sound as heard is inherently relational and should not be regarded as if it is something that exists in-itself. It is for these reasons that the sounds we hear can vary so much from context to context, even if it has the same source.
In saying that 'sound' is the end product of a complex, interpretative process I'm not saying that this is all merely psychological. There can be physiological, cultural, anthropological, and and whole host of other possible elements or conditions that might be involved in shaping how a sound is experienced.
Just a few thoughts.
Of course
Everything below is not a textbook for good reason. These books bring concepts and understanding which is all you need if you're not in the field doing actual research. Without further ado:This is now a good standard for high level concepts. Not much math or gritty science because it's not needed. The coolest thing about this one is they have a website with some slick demos on it.
Auditory Neuroscience: Making Sense of Sound: Jan Schnupp, Israel Nelken, Andrew King: 9780262518024: Amazon.com: Books
Welcome | Auditory Neuroscience
This is not a text, but a nice book to read that goes into some of the ridiculous things the ear and auditory pathways in particular can do. A straightforward read, but informative nonetheless:
The Universal Sense: How Hearing Shapes the Mind: Seth S. Horowitz, Seth Horowitz: 9781608190904: Amazon.com: Books
This bad boy is the de facto standard for non-scientists learning about psychoacoustics. I promise you every person who has ever studied the ear either owns this, or has read at least a portion of this book. If you look up Moore's JASA papers, you'll see that (I may be wrong, but it was true a few years ago) he is the most cited author in the field.
An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing: Sixth Edition: Brian Moore: 9789004252424: Amazon.com: Books
And finally, this, which is more geared towards our crowd is another standard. Less about how the brain works, and more about how we can manipulate sound to do what we wish.
Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms: Floyd Toole: 9780240520094: Amazon.com: Books
If you're looking for more highly technical stuff, just let me know
I am not entirely sure I understand what you're asking. If you're asking about our perception of various harmonics, yes, many studies have been done on this topic. Even order harmonics typically have little effect on us. Odd order harmonics, however, do. We may not "mind" 2nd and 4th HD, but 3rd and 5th are deal breakers.(two colors ...I'm an artist, a fairly poet): i have a question to you : are we all just trying to deal just with pair and impair distorsion harmonics to find an esthetical deal that our "ears-brain"+culture appreciate in our living rooms ? (If removing the though that we want all expensive cars too in our living rooms!)
If easthetic is easthetic, did you measure F2 & F3 harmonics level with listening impression between pleasent and accurate factors ? And how to deal with it in sound reccording and reproduction ?
I need sand
Sorry Lemans... my bad english writting !
what i want to say is (i read something like that) harmonics and distorsion hamonics in a sound can act like this : pair harmonics is more pleasant to ears but unpair are more accurate in relation to a sound or a tonal color.
But I'm not a specialist, I've you read or experiment something like that ? some say that sound reproduction is just deal with quantity of these pair und umpair harmonics and distorsion...which is complex in a sound chain (speakers, amps, source..the final result is a summ of that) remember the story or myth about the spectral harmonics of 300B tubes...
what i want to say is (i read something like that) harmonics and distorsion hamonics in a sound can act like this : pair harmonics is more pleasant to ears but unpair are more accurate in relation to a sound or a tonal color.
But I'm not a specialist, I've you read or experiment something like that ? some say that sound reproduction is just deal with quantity of these pair und umpair harmonics and distorsion...which is complex in a sound chain (speakers, amps, source..the final result is a summ of that) remember the story or myth about the spectral harmonics of 300B tubes...
You'd have to believe in this "burn-in" to sell this to your clients. This makes perfect sense now.
thank you Pano,
i have to read more english books, didn't have the chance to live younger in an anglosaxon country. with the patience of the reader here i progress also...I hope so !
sorry OP to be OT, sure we hear a difference and in France we like the sand-whishes
Lemans and others, my two cents contribution as i'm not a good technician: I find the author i was refering to : Carleen Maley Hutchins : research papers in Violin Acoustics 1975-1993 (can be found in american libraries, not edited today...if any has a pdf you are welcome)
She said for example : take an arbitrary first at 250 to 6° harmonics (1500hz -Sol-) : no problem of dissonances in relation to the first 250 hz harmonics.
7° harmonics - 1750 hz = dbegginning of dissonance in relation to the first 250 hz harmonic
8° harmonics : no problem
9° harmonics : 225O hz (Ré) = dissonant and the number of dissonant harmonics increase dramaticly after that : 13 to 15, 17 to 19 , 21 to 23 & 25 !
Industrial speakers builders know that and serious one work with it for the reverb of the enclosures...
And so on...
from a paper of jean Hiraga, La Nouvelle Revue du Son N°284, april 2004.
i have to read more english books, didn't have the chance to live younger in an anglosaxon country. with the patience of the reader here i progress also...I hope so !
sorry OP to be OT, sure we hear a difference and in France we like the sand-whishes
Lemans and others, my two cents contribution as i'm not a good technician: I find the author i was refering to : Carleen Maley Hutchins : research papers in Violin Acoustics 1975-1993 (can be found in american libraries, not edited today...if any has a pdf you are welcome)
She said for example : take an arbitrary first at 250 to 6° harmonics (1500hz -Sol-) : no problem of dissonances in relation to the first 250 hz harmonics.
7° harmonics - 1750 hz = dbegginning of dissonance in relation to the first 250 hz harmonic
8° harmonics : no problem
9° harmonics : 225O hz (Ré) = dissonant and the number of dissonant harmonics increase dramaticly after that : 13 to 15, 17 to 19 , 21 to 23 & 25 !
Industrial speakers builders know that and serious one work with it for the reverb of the enclosures...
And so on...
from a paper of jean Hiraga, La Nouvelle Revue du Son N°284, april 2004.
( sigh ) As the thread descends into the normal oblivion on this topic of which there is no scientific consensus.
Are any of you in the Phoneix Arizona US area ? Ive converted people who think wire does not matter before, I can do it again. Fully double blind. Lets do zip cord vs $50,000/M speaker cables. I have a 100% accurate record. You will loose.
You know.. funny thing. I close my eyes when i listen critically as it allows me to focus on the sound better so your cited study makes a lot of sense to me
So is it possible for a human to be able to perceive things you cant currently measure ? Perception is a very powerful tool and to dismiss it offhand is scientifically unwise. To state blankly that burn-in, or the differences in wire, cannot be perceived is like saying the earth was flat or that jitter in digital signals cant possibly be perceived.
Is it scientifically possible that there is a physical and real phenomena occurring that we cant measure but your brain can perceive ? Is it possible ? Yes or No.
I really should not throw wood into this fire. This thread will go on forever with people eventually rage quitting.. But I started the thread, and I am passionate about this and believe fully, so i will defend the thread.
Are any of you in the Phoneix Arizona US area ? Ive converted people who think wire does not matter before, I can do it again. Fully double blind. Lets do zip cord vs $50,000/M speaker cables. I have a 100% accurate record. You will loose.
You know.. funny thing. I close my eyes when i listen critically as it allows me to focus on the sound better so your cited study makes a lot of sense to me
So is it possible for a human to be able to perceive things you cant currently measure ? Perception is a very powerful tool and to dismiss it offhand is scientifically unwise. To state blankly that burn-in, or the differences in wire, cannot be perceived is like saying the earth was flat or that jitter in digital signals cant possibly be perceived.
Is it scientifically possible that there is a physical and real phenomena occurring that we cant measure but your brain can perceive ? Is it possible ? Yes or No.
I really should not throw wood into this fire. This thread will go on forever with people eventually rage quitting.. But I started the thread, and I am passionate about this and believe fully, so i will defend the thread.
You are failing to understand something enormous. For a cable to cost $50,000, this implies there is some legitimate reason why it costs so much money. It must be based on something other than a casual thought, otherwise there would be no way to justify the price. Hence, you have solid core cables and silver cables, and cables with various types of terminations, etc. If these things indeed make a difference, then that difference must be measurable. It absolutely has to be, otherwise you have not changed anything. You're designing a cable based on the same knowledge which you say may not be sufficient to explain the results. That is 100% contradictory. Why, for example, do audiophile cable companies make extravagant scientific claims and in the same paragraph state "if you can't measure it, it does not mean it is not happening". How is it possible, therefore, to scientifically design something using current scientific knowledge without ever using the scientific method? You put it on sale knowing that you have no measured difference, but you hear something.
What made you design it so that you would hear what you do? Clearly some science was used to create your hypothesis, but you can neither test it since we can't currently measure your hypothesis, nor do you accept that contradictory results lead to rejection of your hypothesis. Now do you understand why people laugh at audiophile cables which claim that even if you can't measure it, that it's still there? You can't use science to improve something and then claim that science can't yet prove the improvement, but that your results are still valid. I therefore state that your assertion is false: it is only scientifically unwise to accept your findings when the results are not scientific.
What made you design it so that you would hear what you do? Clearly some science was used to create your hypothesis, but you can neither test it since we can't currently measure your hypothesis, nor do you accept that contradictory results lead to rejection of your hypothesis. Now do you understand why people laugh at audiophile cables which claim that even if you can't measure it, that it's still there? You can't use science to improve something and then claim that science can't yet prove the improvement, but that your results are still valid. I therefore state that your assertion is false: it is only scientifically unwise to accept your findings when the results are not scientific.
directive.You found something by chance and extrapolate a theory : "sand burn in"
The beginning of the science is to test the theory to have concistency in time and verify the predictions' theory
You have to experiments, do measures, refine your assertion to make this information usable. How we do with sand ? what are the causes :weight, density, volume changed if in ther same cavity than drivers, psychological...
Does it seems to be a minor change or a great change in a system in the chain of priority (time-money-possibilities-knowledge) when making a good systems.
just few thoughs too, I read your thread if you progress like that.
In france we like these exchanges of listening sessions at home but as we all drink red wine at the end we hear nothing but the bird (and I'm not talking about Charlie Parker)
!
Maybe a new section in Diya: Theory & research... all professionals will do their benchmark (and/or marketing ! not bad though from me)
The beginning of the science is to test the theory to have concistency in time and verify the predictions' theory
You have to experiments, do measures, refine your assertion to make this information usable. How we do with sand ? what are the causes :weight, density, volume changed if in ther same cavity than drivers, psychological...
Does it seems to be a minor change or a great change in a system in the chain of priority (time-money-possibilities-knowledge) when making a good systems.
just few thoughs too, I read your thread if you progress like that.
In france we like these exchanges of listening sessions at home but as we all drink red wine at the end we hear nothing but the bird (and I'm not talking about Charlie Parker)
!Maybe a new section in Diya: Theory & research... all professionals will do their benchmark (and/or marketing ! not bad though from me)
Last edited:
Hmm...I loved the way the thread was going.
Anyhow.
Dear xymox1 i hope i don't get to annoying
I started to get a little bit uneasy when i see your "test" of the damping sheets.
From your answers i think you don't understand what i mean.So...
You knocked here:
and you knocked here
Even without the damping sheets the missing front will make a big difference.
Let alone the sand.
Everything else is said - I have to thank all the other writers. It was very interresting.
Somewhere, I can not remember where, I've read an article about a test where a bunch of experienced Violin players have not been able to identify their own violins by their sound...Stradivaris included. Trained ears?
Anyhow.
Dear xymox1 i hope i don't get to annoying
I started to get a little bit uneasy when i see your "test" of the damping sheets.
From your answers i think you don't understand what i mean.So...
You knocked here:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
and you knocked here
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Even without the damping sheets the missing front will make a big difference.
Let alone the sand.
Everything else is said - I have to thank all the other writers. It was very interresting.
Somewhere, I can not remember where, I've read an article about a test where a bunch of experienced Violin players have not been able to identify their own violins by their sound...Stradivaris included. Trained ears?
Yes, It was one or two years ago if i remenber :a huge work.
- One of the best international brand new violin makers (one of the best world artisan recognized...by international level musicians (psychomoneyacoustic?)
-Stradivarius (more than one).
- Double blind test (the musicians who plays and listeners don't see which violin is playing)
- poor violins
- Double double blind test : Stradivarius owners plays other Stradivarius and brand new violin without knowing. Their own too.
- No sand
- No knock on violin
- The searcher is not a violin maker, not a musician and are said to be independant. (maybe has he a hifi system)
result : they heard a difference with the poor violins (so money is not a factor here) but no concistency result between Stradivarius and the best moderns ones. Some found that the Stradivarius was the modern one and the opposite !
So maybe tweak a violin is not a lie...you can earn more money with that than with tweaked hifi !
You can test a funny game : pinch your nose, drink wine or whysky, you can't identify... After two bottles, always in blind test, go in the street, pinch the a..ss of two women, the one who slape you is your wife !... or not !
I hope i'm on topic : it's about method to test theory in sand...sorry...sound perception.
We need method... felt open baffle is The factor of peace...
Last edited:
Accelerometers attached to the enclosure walls would be quite useful. They're relatively inexpensive, so one could put them on multiple spots on each panel. See the cabinet response at the get-go (I'd think an MLS excitation would be appropriate), then check it again over time.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.