When you can´t prove some point you argue you kick the chessboard and talk about Pigeon cloacal prolapse. Yummy!!!!
I bet that alone puts you firmly in the "Pigeon" field.
Including the mandatory "and after that you proudly walk around as if you had "won"
It must be tiresome searching the Net 24/7 to find the most nonsensical videos.
That´s some kind of achievement.
Hey, you found another SHUNYATA video!!!!!!!
Good boy! Good boy!!!!!
They´ll raise your salary.
Legit question or just trying to mud the field?
You systematically reject measurements or find trouble with them.
I am talking real measurements, within Human Physical ability to detect, not arguing supposed sounds buried 60dB below noise level.
Good idea, but to no avail. The King wants NOBODY telling him he´s naked.
Don´t expect any (real) measurements backing the hype and snake oil.
I will take that as a vote for, 'not funny.' Thank you.
Legit. It can matter. LUFS meters were developed for commercial broadcast use because other preexisting methods didn't work well enough.
Also, the post I was responding probably deserved some more commentary. Level matching for preference testing should be done to within 0.1dB. Starting and ending times of samples to compare can be done in a DAW down to the frame level, which is a bit more coarse than the sample level, yet probably more than good enough.
The main problem with youtube videos is that the audio is lossy compressed. Therefore small details tend to get lost unless lossy encoder thinks they are perceptually important to speech or music perception. The only really good way to remotely compare the sound of something like two cables would be with two high-res wav files digitized with the same SOA or near SOA digitizer. Even then, at the reproduction end many dacs won't sound exactly like each other or be equally accurate from a perceptual perspective. Even more potential problems with accurate reproduction in other parts of the system such as speakers. Therefore there is nothing quite so good as listening under the actual conditions where a difference was claimed to be heard. IME in that case small differences are more likely to be noticeable by most people. However some people may require some training before being blind tested in that situation. Such training is considered appropriate when the question is one of whether a particular effect is 'audible' or not.
EDIT: For discrimination testing instead of preference testing, IME precise level matching is not so important. I encourage listeners to learn how to adjust the volume level to where they feel they can notice the most small details. Often that is at a rather low volume, although exceptions to that may exist depending on specifics. For example, when listening for the reproduction of long room decay sounds it may be helpful to turn up the overall volume level so as to make low level decay tails sufficiently audible.
Last edited:
Did you bother to read any of the information provided in the link?
http://www.libinst.com/Audio DiffMaker.htm
especially point 6, on page 8 of the AES pdf that was referenced at the top of that link..
http://www.libinst.com/AES Audio Differencing Paper.pdf
@afa
This is cool idea. Has it been utilized generally?
One might expect a range of results from small differences detected producing large audible differences to differencing results that make no audible difference... not just to see if the golden ear crowd are iron pyrites.
One might use it to determine whether or not noise floor reductions in a listening room would be useful (though, I suppose, that should be an ongoing effort in any event).
I imagine it could be used to verify or debunk the skin effect hypotheses... which would be ironic.
This is cool idea. Has it been utilized generally?
One might expect a range of results from small differences detected producing large audible differences to differencing results that make no audible difference... not just to see if the golden ear crowd are iron pyrites.
One might use it to determine whether or not noise floor reductions in a listening room would be useful (though, I suppose, that should be an ongoing effort in any event).
I imagine it could be used to verify or debunk the skin effect hypotheses... which would be ironic.
One possible problem with using a differencing program is that if differences are small they may be assumed to be in audible based on the further assumption that the ear/brain system is strongly LTI. However, if the ear/brain system is in part a detector with a threshold (i.e. threshold of audibility) then something like stochastic resonance effects may make an inaudible signal become audible. However, IMHO what actually happens with something like distortion on a recording is a bit different that how stochastic resonance works. In the case of music on a recording, distortion and or signal-correlated noise are correlated with the music being listened to. That correlation seems to make a low level signal much more audible than if it were uncorrelated with what is being listened to. Again the ear/brain system may not be as close to LTI as people sometimes tend to assume. That's my take on it for now anyway. Inchoate musings subject to change as new information becomes available 🙂
I am going to assume that someone has taken two identical mono-block amplifiers, (resistive load, or identical reactive loads), one powered with a megabuck supply cord, the other with 16 gauge zip-cord power supply cable, fed a mono-signal into both, and fed the output into a diff-amp to examine the residual.
@jackinnj
Hopefully, they will do something like that when and if the test is attempted.
It's just a serving suggestion at this point... looking for applicants.
Of course it is something that could be emplyed as a matter of course with lots of products. One of the standard bank of tests used.
Hopefully, they will do something like that when and if the test is attempted.
It's just a serving suggestion at this point... looking for applicants.
Of course it is something that could be emplyed as a matter of course with lots of products. One of the standard bank of tests used.
The lounge doesn't necessarily connote frivolity does it?
What about fuses?
For myself I'd rather contemplate a double conversion UPS solution and evaluate the acceptability of standard computer models... rather than the "audiophile anointed" money pits?
I think that regardless what component is being assessed, the difference test noted would be advisable.
What about fuses?
For myself I'd rather contemplate a double conversion UPS solution and evaluate the acceptability of standard computer models... rather than the "audiophile anointed" money pits?
I think that regardless what component is being assessed, the difference test noted would be advisable.
If you want to talk about fused, this brand is very well liked. If fact if you don't know of this company you should check out all their fine products.
https://www.synergisticresearch.com/fuses/purple-fuse/
https://www.synergisticresearch.com/fuses/purple-fuse/
Oooohhh, Quantum Fuse! Whoa. For a paltry 124.95$. 🤣
“The new SR BLUE Quantum Fuse was developed over a two year period and represents our most advanced UEF Technology to date. At its heart is a completely new UEF / Graphene coating that delivers a dramatic increase in resolution and holographic realism over SR Black. And thanks to a new conditioning process, break-in time is cut in half.”
As we are now in entertainment forum section, at least your posts are on topic.
Now it is easier to burn in the ground wire of power cables.
https://positive-feedback.com/reviews/hardware-reviews/audiodharma-cable-cooker/
https://positive-feedback.com/reviews/hardware-reviews/audiodharma-cable-cooker/
@Rick
The easiest way to burn in a ground is probably not to bother even thinking about it... let alone worry sufficiently to consider paying for a cooker.
Unless and until you can satisfy the veracity of this burn in as a thing... to this audience... you're preaching to an empty room. That can't be good for sales.
There are folks out there who are crying for someone to clean their ducts. They need your attention. On the phone.
[sigh] It's easy to fall into the snark trap once the first example is posted. (like littering...) Sorry.
Listen, Rick. You need to meet this group half way. Even here in the lounge. Run the test -- as @jackinnj described on your cable and post the results. The guy who helped Gary in 1995 would.
The easiest way to burn in a ground is probably not to bother even thinking about it... let alone worry sufficiently to consider paying for a cooker.
Unless and until you can satisfy the veracity of this burn in as a thing... to this audience... you're preaching to an empty room. That can't be good for sales.
[sigh] It's easy to fall into the snark trap once the first example is posted. (like littering...) Sorry.
Listen, Rick. You need to meet this group half way. Even here in the lounge. Run the test -- as @jackinnj described on your cable and post the results. The guy who helped Gary in 1995 would.
Last edited:
I do not have the equipment to make that test that you speak of. Thanks for your suggestion.
Rick
The problem is that your "advertising" is then inherently empty and therefore pointless to promulgate.
On the other hand, tombo had a good suggestion from the skeptic corner: Show us your system -- particularly the PSU and grounding arrangement. Maybe something in your design enables you to discriminate these subtleties. Or as tombo implies has a problem that, once fixed, would transform your system into one that sounds great but could care less about AC cords.
It's up to you.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.