Positron said:
...what you stated leads to that statement...
Not in reality. Maybe in Positron's opinion. From my point of view, Positron has many personal opinions do not comport with generally accepted science. If he refuses to have any interest in understanding science and instead insists on substituting wildly exaggerated claims then there is probably nothing anybody can do that will help.
"Generally accepted science". So far we have Not seen you present 1 piece of science evidence to back your statement concerning dbts
being accurate. So far we have not heard a single variable addressed in dbts from you either. That is very telling.
The typical dbts pushed in audio, skewed 100% of the time towards no sonic difference, would be laughed out of the
medical scientific community classroom. Why would you claim science while attacking medical science, who are the experts.
pos
...what you stated leads to that statement...
Not in reality. Maybe in Positron's opinion. From my point of view, Positron has many personal opinions do not comport with generally accepted science. If he refuses to have any interest in understanding science and instead insists on substituting wildly exaggerated claims then there is probably nothing anybody can do that will help.
"Generally accepted science". So far we have Not seen you present 1 piece of science evidence to back your statement concerning dbts
being accurate. So far we have not heard a single variable addressed in dbts from you either. That is very telling.
The typical dbts pushed in audio, skewed 100% of the time towards no sonic difference, would be laughed out of the
medical scientific community classroom. Why would you claim science while attacking medical science, who are the experts.
pos
Last edited:
Ah, but I didn't say anything about amateur so-called DBTs that often go on in audio forums.
I was talking only about the real science. You see, I hear small differences pretty well. I have also passed some DBT. I know what its like, and so do some others here in the forum. My interest is in finding the actual science of the subject. I already linked some serious references in #107: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...ans-speaker-cables-matter.402634/post-7629576
Mark:
Ah, but I didn't say anything about amateur so-called DBTs that often go on in audio forums.
I was talking only about the real science. You see, I hear small differences pretty well. I have also passed some DBT. I know what its like, and so do some others here in the forum. My interest is in finding the actual science of the subject. I already linked some serious references in #107: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...ans-speaker-cables-matter.402634/post-7629576
--------------------
But I posted this in #126 but with no response from you.
"Important: Again, the problem is no one is performing a proper, non skewed dbt test. I cannot emphasize this enough. I am not
against PROPER dbt testing, but no one is performing such."
So I agreed with you but
I never received an agreement from you. Instead continued attacks. So were you referring to real dbts or typical audio forum dbters.
And the question I have to ask is did the"real scientific contact the medical experts, or simply some engineers who push said dbt tests??
If not medical, then one is almost guaranteed they are not addressing the variables thus not conducted properly and skewed toward
No sonic difference.
pos
ps. Mom, 96 feel and hit her head and hurt her knee in the nursing home, so off to the hospital I go.
Ah, but I didn't say anything about amateur so-called DBTs that often go on in audio forums.
I was talking only about the real science. You see, I hear small differences pretty well. I have also passed some DBT. I know what its like, and so do some others here in the forum. My interest is in finding the actual science of the subject. I already linked some serious references in #107: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...ans-speaker-cables-matter.402634/post-7629576
--------------------
But I posted this in #126 but with no response from you.
"Important: Again, the problem is no one is performing a proper, non skewed dbt test. I cannot emphasize this enough. I am not
against PROPER dbt testing, but no one is performing such."
So I agreed with you but
I never received an agreement from you. Instead continued attacks. So were you referring to real dbts or typical audio forum dbters.
And the question I have to ask is did the"real scientific contact the medical experts, or simply some engineers who push said dbt tests??
If not medical, then one is almost guaranteed they are not addressing the variables thus not conducted properly and skewed toward
No sonic difference.
pos
ps. Mom, 96 feel and hit her head and hurt her knee in the nursing home, so off to the hospital I go.
What was an "attack?"
That's a valid question. There is a field of perceptual science. For audio, historically it started with Psychoacoustics and now continues with Auditory Scene Analysis.
Some of the early work is IMHO questionable to an extent, but probably not totally wrong. Take Ohm's Acoustical Law as formulated by Helmholtz for example; it turns out to be an approximation in some cases, but its not totally wrong. W. Dixon Ward estimated the Law to be maybe one-quarter true. Other people have disagreed about the percentage but not disagreed that there are some exceptions.
Also, some of the methodology of perceptual science and known testing methods is summarized in literature not aimed primarily at hearing. The techniques can apply to the study of aural perception too. Nothing new or controversial about that.
Personally, I like the technique of Descriptive Analysis. What do you think about that approach?
Last edited:
Thanks 6A3. Much appreciated.
Mom fell again, this time friday at the eye doctor's office. She is permanently bound to a wheel chair, cannot stand, and
slipped out when an attendant left for a moment. CAT scan of head and xrays of pelvis and knees wednesday negative. Fridays
xrays also negative.
I have to leave the discussion, just too much is going on.
pos
Define "Normal listening".
"The presence of visual stimuli has been shown to have an effect on preference and quality ratings for reproduced audio. Iwamiya [19] found that subjective evaluations of quality for both audio and video increased when the two modalities were combined, compared to when presented in isolation. A study into the interaction between audio and visual factors in a home theater system [20, 21] showed that both the audio reproduction method and the screen size influenced the mean rating of the attribute space. Hollier et al. [22] found that perceived audio quality increased when the audio is accompanied by visuals. Rumsey et al. [23] investigated the effect of visual stimuli on na¨ıve listener ratings of preference. The presence of visuals was found to have a statistically significant but small effect on listener preference—an interaction effect between the presence of visuals and the type of program material was also found."
https://salford-repository.worktribe.com/preview/1489771/20494-1.pdf
Is it my 15'W X 26'L living room, or the L shaped 18'W X 28'L with a 50% cutout for the kitchen and open stairwell at our family cabin? How about the 15' square living room with 60" HDTV where we watch movies(does the perceived sound quality differ from the 720P and 4k cable channels?)
Do my homebuilt transmission line line source electrostatic loudspeakers which present a 4 ohm resistive load from DC to 37kHz require different cables from my Magnepan 2.7i?
"The presence of visual stimuli has been shown to have an effect on preference and quality ratings for reproduced audio. Iwamiya [19] found that subjective evaluations of quality for both audio and video increased when the two modalities were combined, compared to when presented in isolation. A study into the interaction between audio and visual factors in a home theater system [20, 21] showed that both the audio reproduction method and the screen size influenced the mean rating of the attribute space. Hollier et al. [22] found that perceived audio quality increased when the audio is accompanied by visuals. Rumsey et al. [23] investigated the effect of visual stimuli on na¨ıve listener ratings of preference. The presence of visuals was found to have a statistically significant but small effect on listener preference—an interaction effect between the presence of visuals and the type of program material was also found."
https://salford-repository.worktribe.com/preview/1489771/20494-1.pdf
Is it my 15'W X 26'L living room, or the L shaped 18'W X 28'L with a 50% cutout for the kitchen and open stairwell at our family cabin? How about the 15' square living room with 60" HDTV where we watch movies(does the perceived sound quality differ from the 720P and 4k cable channels?)
Do my homebuilt transmission line line source electrostatic loudspeakers which present a 4 ohm resistive load from DC to 37kHz require different cables from my Magnepan 2.7i?
technophile50,
Interesting, thanks!
I long ago noticed that the visuals of the surrounding room, windows, light, lighting, color, wood grain, etc. Do contribute to the listening enjoyment of a playback system.
Take a pair of equipments that do have a low to moderately detectable sound difference, and compare the sound of them.
1. Use plain looking room with plain visuals. Can most people detect the sound differences of the two equipments?
Some people might want to go home, go to a restaurant, etc.
2. Use an upscale room that is visually striking. Can most people detect the sound differences of the two equipments?
It would be real funny if a wonderful room distracted some listeners, so that they no longer can hear the detectable differences.
Never go 'hungry', there is an infinite amount of food for thought.
Interesting, thanks!
I long ago noticed that the visuals of the surrounding room, windows, light, lighting, color, wood grain, etc. Do contribute to the listening enjoyment of a playback system.
Take a pair of equipments that do have a low to moderately detectable sound difference, and compare the sound of them.
1. Use plain looking room with plain visuals. Can most people detect the sound differences of the two equipments?
Some people might want to go home, go to a restaurant, etc.
2. Use an upscale room that is visually striking. Can most people detect the sound differences of the two equipments?
It would be real funny if a wonderful room distracted some listeners, so that they no longer can hear the detectable differences.
Never go 'hungry', there is an infinite amount of food for thought.
The best listener I know, a successful professional audio designer who among other things uses his ears, always closes his eyes when he listens seriously.
As far as having large screen video monitors in a serious listening room, hope you like comb filtering from the reflections off the flat surface. For me such a room would likely be unacceptable because of its acoustics.
As far as having large screen video monitors in a serious listening room, hope you like comb filtering from the reflections off the flat surface. For me such a room would likely be unacceptable because of its acoustics.
Markw4,
I find there are more and more Systems designers on Tubes/Valves.
Things, like considering the reflective nature from the video monitor.
Then, consider some are flat, and some are curved.
Always more to think about, versus the effects they cause.
Comb Filtering:
When I lost my hearing in one ear . . .
I walked across the stereo field, left speaker, to the center, to the right speaker.
With so many 'stereo' recordings that have an XY scope display that looks like 45 degree upward sloped line from left to right, I was so surprised to easily hear the comb filter effect. The narrow spread of that line, makes it close to Mono.
A stereo recording with a more round, bloomed XY scope display does not have near the comb effect as you walk across the stereo field.
Previously, with 2 ears, one ear would fill in for the other, then they would switch which one fills in. The result with 2 ears has much smoother sound levels as you move across the stereo field.
I find there are more and more Systems designers on Tubes/Valves.
Things, like considering the reflective nature from the video monitor.
Then, consider some are flat, and some are curved.
Always more to think about, versus the effects they cause.
Comb Filtering:
When I lost my hearing in one ear . . .
I walked across the stereo field, left speaker, to the center, to the right speaker.
With so many 'stereo' recordings that have an XY scope display that looks like 45 degree upward sloped line from left to right, I was so surprised to easily hear the comb filter effect. The narrow spread of that line, makes it close to Mono.
A stereo recording with a more round, bloomed XY scope display does not have near the comb effect as you walk across the stereo field.
Previously, with 2 ears, one ear would fill in for the other, then they would switch which one fills in. The result with 2 ears has much smoother sound levels as you move across the stereo field.
Last edited:
Markw4 A flat surface has to be illuminated by a sound source to reflect problematic sounds, much less of a problem with dipole speakers. The prompt sound gives the characteristics that allow us to identify and locate sound sources. Delayed/reflected sounds let us identify the acoustic environment. Even completely untrained listeners can identify the relative size of a room while blindfolded, as well as proximity to walls if you pop bubble wrap. I once did some technical work in an acoustically isolated anechoic chamber used for bat echolocation research. It was easy to hear and place the noise of the x-y microphone scanning platform (It used stepper motors, which distracted the bats). The lack of noise and acoustic space was uncanny; I suspect even novice listeners would easily tell this space was different. It's practically impossible to obscure the physical listening space; good speaker placement, surface treatments, and multichannel and/or processed sound can make it less obtrusive.
True. As it happens I use dipole speakers (SoundLab, Majestic Series). https://www.soundlabspeakers.com/majestic/
Still, very small reflective surfaces between the speakers give rise to audible comb filtering. It only takes maybe 2-3 square inches to become noticeable. Probably different for different speakers in different rooms. Obviously a room designed for movie or VR surround sound mastering needs to be optimized for its intended purpose, and it can be done pretty well. Not the purpose of my room though; its to evaluate the sound of upstream audio electronics. For me, a video monitor between the speakers or certain other objects in room are not optimal for my particular purposes. That's all.