It takes a long time to realize that design by Audio Precision only gets one so far because the indoctrination into the EE community of this method is very deep.
Moroni and moronviii - Don't know. If those are forum names they are not me.
Last edited:
Few things can explain why I'm so happy I've a career in something far away from audio electronics. I'd love to see the facial expression of the FDA referees when I tried to explain that I am completely eschewing all forms of robust testing and validation of clinical diagnostics systems because I'm absolutely confident my new method works equivalent or better than prior tests.
Or that I'm not even sure I can frame the problem I'm trying to solve...
Or that I'm not even sure I can frame the problem I'm trying to solve...
You guys think I live in some vacuum. I worked along side some heavy hitters for quite a while. I'm a member of the Hollywood Sapphire Group. Anytime I want to I can take my gear and get a full T&M work over at Wes Dooley's AEA operation. Keith Barr, Brad Plunkett, Mitch Margolis to name a few are designers I have worked for or around.
Perhaps not disavow all you learned, but maybe loosen your grip on the view that you have the one-and-true path to audio enlightenment? It's an uncomfortable thought to contemplate, "well, what if I'm wrong?"
I should know, I abandoned a couple paths of research over the last 5 years that have come back to slap me in the face. Some of which I should have known better, some of which I later learned my folly as my understanding grew in depth. It's pretty humbling. It continues to be pretty humbling. Fortunately, my advisers and colleagues have consistently pushed me to take a major emotional detachment to my pet theories and be more and more adherent to Mr. Wurcer's signature.
So perhaps, go back and delve into the physics of signals and electronics such that you can actually frame the problems you're trying to solve in terms of what electrons care about. To ask you to get into a modicum of the acoustical challenges of reproduction and our ability to hear would be a massive bonus. You don't even need to go to a tremendous depth, just enough to frame the magnitude of the effects you hold sacrosanct.
It might go a long ways to tempering your philosophy-first, reality be ___ed approach.
That could be a spell checker auto correction thing. Bill, you just got the benefit of the doubt from me 🙂
The joke was the Roman numerals.
You said it "that specific characteristic."
This single metric is insufficient to make a complete determination or draw a conclusion.
This is already known - that the metrics currently used do not correlate.
<snip>
You have to consider what you have just said in a broader context:
- your own listening sensitivities to "distortions" is not highly sensitive.
- what Waslo's test actually shows - what does it show?
(rhetorical question more or less... it shows that it is likely that sound that the brain processes as "natural" (based on physical and evolutionary causes) is NOT noticed very much as being "out of place". What the brain seems to make us perceive is sounds that do NOT occur very much if ever from "natural" (aka pre-programmed) sources. Things like the smear of electronic/electromechanical sibilence, and oddly assembled harmonics of the human voice - things like that.
You may wish to reconsider your conclusions taking in a broader context than simple noise floors and distortion levels, and the like?
_-_-
Try this on...
Consider your hearing to be a person with a bad case of OCD (obsessional compulsive disorder). Take the visual case. How exact do rows of <whatever> need to be? Depending on the degree of your OCD, perhaps mighty exact? Within 0.001" in an extreme case.
Whereas of a "normal" person might not care or notice.
Any possible correlation to hearing?
Another interesting way to look at it (it's been said before) is to consider a perfectly black or a perfectly white sheet paper. How many minute grains of the opposite color can you put down before it is noticed? Think about it.
There are a few variables: the size of the "grains", the distance to the object, the number of grains and their position WRT each other, and the paper...
At what point, with a sufficient number of minute "nano" grains does the object merely appear to be another shade, like a grey.
Say you are used to "grey"? Perhaps you don't notice the grains until a sufficent quantity is removed or added?
Any correlation to hearing??
Consider your hearing to be a person with a bad case of OCD (obsessional compulsive disorder). Take the visual case. How exact do rows of <whatever> need to be? Depending on the degree of your OCD, perhaps mighty exact? Within 0.001" in an extreme case.
Whereas of a "normal" person might not care or notice.
Any possible correlation to hearing?
Another interesting way to look at it (it's been said before) is to consider a perfectly black or a perfectly white sheet paper. How many minute grains of the opposite color can you put down before it is noticed? Think about it.
There are a few variables: the size of the "grains", the distance to the object, the number of grains and their position WRT each other, and the paper...
At what point, with a sufficient number of minute "nano" grains does the object merely appear to be another shade, like a grey.
Say you are used to "grey"? Perhaps you don't notice the grains until a sufficent quantity is removed or added?
Any correlation to hearing??
A loose analogy but i get your point. Some people like their shades of grey though, attempts at whitening can be stressful apparently, i didn't know digital stress even existed until i joined this forum. I prefer a computer analogy - if krap in = cr*p out there must be distortion somewhere in the chain. (especially when it comes to most current music)
call it TIM who knows but as i age, only specific amplifiers allow me to 'seperate' various instruments on recordings. ie class-a and d work.
if the amplifer is ab/op-amp based its all muddy.
-
if the amplifer is ab/op-amp based its all muddy.
-
Bring evidence and we can talk. Everyone who has wanted to contradict me on the audibility of their pet theory has been bereft.
Bayes is really a jerk, I know! Look at the horrible things he unleashed on us all. The audacity of him to frame things in terms of prior plausibility. (In this case, that's a pretty well established understanding of signals, electromagnetism and device physics)
I'm not asking for much! Much of which is accessible with a decent usb-based sound card and ARTA. No, your ears don't count until you're willing to go to good lengths for experimental control. Too easily manipulated by environmental variables.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.