Maybe in a decade's time, a better understanding of human ear capability (and even further - a better understanding of what we humans perceive as a better sound, vs. what the Audio Precision observes/detects/records/presents as a better sound) would produce better measuring equipment, relevant/more suitable set of measurements.... that would require a different approach to capturing what many humans report as better sound.
After all, Audio Precision is there to serve humanity - not other way around; why would we expect that we humans must change our perception of what sounds good? To keep Mr Audio Precision happy?
After all, Audio Precision is there to serve humanity - not other way around; why would we expect that we humans must change our perception of what sounds good? To keep Mr Audio Precision happy?
Sigh. RFI, EMI, EMC.... thank goodness I don't know what any of those acronyms mean.. I mean really, how could I sleep at night with all those capitalized letters floating about in my brain.
I am so glad my life and work don't use any of dem doze letters..
John
ps. links that float my boat... would be great. Meantime, I await delivery of my D220TI drivers horns and adapters, my 8 RU rails, my bevelled glass set, and the candle coloring set.
Even if we had 100% understanding half a century ago it would not halt the personal revelations of the Golden Ears club, or the charlatans selling them snake oil. There's no stopping religion (defined as belief without or in spite of evidence) with science, as history has proved, with billions still worshipping various invisible Sky Daddies in this age of space telescopes and microelectronics...
Please provide links to scientific evidence supporting each of your above claims. Thanks
Touché, but only on my Golden Ears claim! Deity-based religions have no basis for their claims so it's not my requirement to prove they don't exist, just as I would not expect anyone to prove that my invisible unicorn does not exist.Please provide links to scientific evidence supporting each of your above claims. Thanks
Belief as we all know is a stronger motivator than proof.
However I think the challenge here is in what comes first, and what acts as the final adjudicator.
The value proposition of audio is subjective aural pleasure, and for most the quality of this is the final criterion, not the specifications or measurements that support it. You cannot measure this opinion you have to accept and understand it. Dismissing opinion as lacking evidence is missing the whole point, the subjective 'evidence' IS the opinion, and consensus of a subjective view moves towards a more generally evidence based perspective in any case.
The scientific method helps us advance and understand, and measurements and the interpretation of these to qualify a hypothesis is essential.
Mixing the subjective outcome with an objective rationale is also essential to progress, however not everything we can progress is measurable, and certainly not by a DIY tool kit.
If you hear it repeatedly: it is
if you can measure it repeatedly: it is
if you can hear and measure: it is, and you can understand more about it, and have the chance of progressing it further
if you can hear it and not measure it ....it still is
if you can measure it and not hear it .....it still is (but may be of limited use to audio)
"If you think you hear it" might be a better line throughout, as we all know how unreliable comparative hearing can be and how very easily the ears are fooled, even by the eyes of the listener. There must be a reason that ABX testing is so rare - is it fundamentally flawed or would the little wizard behind the curtain finally be revealed...
noted, but it is difficult to listen without operating your brain.
The reality is to anyone that enjoys hi fidelity music at home, there are differences between equipment, adaptions and modifications to this and of course the environment they operate within. No one measures what they hear with these changes and uses this to judge what should be perceived as an outcome, and if they are so set on measurement as the one and only truth then I very much doubt I would think the system of this rare individual to sound congenial
If you are so unconfident with your own judgement, there in lies the problem. How do you buy anything in the audio line, measure it yourself, double blind with others and trust their judgement (or preferences), read other people reviews. Certainly no point in going to the shop or having a home demo as you are already biased, mislead and fooled by going to the shop......
Better still pay a friend to relocate your your existing kit in a new box and make up a suitable online review, then hopefully you will think its better
PMA used to put on listening tests here that relied on Foobar ABX. PMA eventually trained himself to reliably pass ABX, but in the process of doing so he found that the criticisms of people tested with ABX were true. It requires a lot of sustained concentration to pass, which makes it difficult even when there is an audible difference (unless perhaps the difference is so gross as to be unmistakable in any state of mind and or degree of fatigue). Also, ABX in particular tends to be biased towards false negatives. Again that may arise from lack of sustained concentration and increasing fatigue. In other words what is easily audible once or twice starts to get much more difficult after 20, 50, or 100 trials. It starts to scramble the brain. But those kinds numbers are needed to generate statistics.
So, at the least it appears that ABX is more complicated than the simple model many people seem to expect, to the effect that it should be easy if there is a true audible difference.
Also, ABX is not the only blind perceptual protocol. There are some better ones with higher sensitivity, such as A/B. Any of the protocols can be done DBT. That's not the issue.
A lot more could be said on the subject, but its been discussed many times over a period of decades. No need to repeat it all here.
Last edited:
The simplest test, blind, double blind, deaf, dumb or not:
Build "double mono" psus. Listen. Stop listen. Wait at least 10 seconds. And connect these - together. Listen. Stop listen. Wait at least 10 seconds. And disconnect. Listen. Stop listen. Wait at least 10 seconds and connect. Listen. Stop listen. And so on.
Do we hear the differences of same parts and layouts;-?
...
A/the basic test to clean up almost the entire HiFi discourse;-?
Build "double mono" psus. Listen. Stop listen. Wait at least 10 seconds. And connect these - together. Listen. Stop listen. Wait at least 10 seconds. And disconnect. Listen. Stop listen. Wait at least 10 seconds and connect. Listen. Stop listen. And so on.
Do we hear the differences of same parts and layouts;-?
...
A/the basic test to clean up almost the entire HiFi discourse;-?
How can you design something to be listened to if you don't understand what you're hearing?
My problem is, I have read the audio magazines for decades, and yes they often do have really great writing.
The problem with an audio reviewer is, they are part of the business. That means in general, they will never discount a product category. For every tolerable audio reviewer there is a Jonathan Scull. Who used to think he could "hear" if an amplifier was "French."
The problem with an audio reviewer is, they are part of the business. That means in general, they will never discount a product category. For every tolerable audio reviewer there is a Jonathan Scull. Who used to think he could "hear" if an amplifier was "French."
I'm trying to say that you don't take measurements for their own sake; you take measurements because otherwise you're just stumbling around in the dark.
Some people appear to me more interested in the measurement numbers that how the equipment sounds. Measurements get you in the operating range you want but if it measures well and sounds bad, then it is bad and more work must be done to get it sounding good. I am not against measurements when building and testing audio equipment, but the end goal in our hobby is the listening.
I see what you mean. Thing is that AC lines sometimes act as antennas and or conduits for RFI.
True! It doesn't happen very often but Jim Brown and Bob Cordell write about it.
* * * * * * *
A DC offset in an amplifier as described in the TI app note can occur if that RFI makes ingress though the device AC power inlet, then passes through the power supply.....
This is the interference that Jim Brown and Bob Cordell write about.
BUT, it's not the AC power supply DC offset problem under discussion in this thread.
The supply DC offset is cause by asymmetry in the AC power. It causes the power transformer to saturate.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.