It can be done using measurements (not THD, but that does seem to be a popular buzzword), it's just easier to do by ear. Don't get me started on what recording studios seem to usually do with compression and de-essing. And I 100% guarantee that the designer of those boxes was reliant on measurement to validate the design.
Again, when someone has a valid listening experiment to back up the remarkable claims here, then we can talk sensibly. Until then, it's more make-believe time.
Again, when someone has a valid listening experiment to back up the remarkable claims here, then we can talk sensibly. Until then, it's more make-believe time.
Here's Kirchhoff experiment nr. 3:
I provide a digital recording and you try to determine what exactly is recorded there, and how good the recording is (on a simple scale good/average/poor). You are allowed to use any processing and measurement method known to mankind (including voice recognition software etc). Except one thing: you're never allowed to transform the numbers into sound and actually listen to the recording or a derivative of it.
Any takers?
I provide a digital recording and you try to determine what exactly is recorded there, and how good the recording is (on a simple scale good/average/poor). You are allowed to use any processing and measurement method known to mankind (including voice recognition software etc). Except one thing: you're never allowed to transform the numbers into sound and actually listen to the recording or a derivative of it.
Any takers?
If it's too challenging, then let's try a subset. You are allowed to listen to the sound, and the purpose is just to find a reliable numerical algorithm that would classify many different recordings as good/average/poor.
Again why are we mixing the recording process with the design of an electronic system, two totally different fields, there can be no comparison... I would be surprised if there was any serious designer that did not use measurement's when designing a replay system...
A Langhorne of a quote there Sy... or should I say Jerry! I like obscure English, one of my favourite quotes is "Gang aft agley" it always seems to fit my situation....
A Langhorne of a quote there Sy... or should I say Jerry! I like obscure English, one of my favourite quotes is "Gang aft agley" it always seems to fit my situation....
Maybe. But the reality is this:
- the "subjectivist" camp will praise the virtues of "listening sessions" and dis the numbers as irrelevant; while declining to perform any ABX testing
- the "objectivist" camp will praise the virtues of "measurements" and dis listening as irrelevant; while declining to perform "Kirchhoff''s experiment nr. 3"
Why would anyone step up to perform a flawed experiment. Just cos u thought of it doesn't make it good!
'use to say'? Did you mean 'used to say'? If so what do they say now?
Or did you mean something completely different?
As has been proved on here many times. Most people love to take ABX tests when they can cheat. What is funny is the one or two who wait until the answers are revealed before pointing out how easily they can hear it. One of the care in the community functions offered by the forum.
And FWIW on your 'test'. from just the bits I would able to tell
DR
Crest factor
average level,
If a drumkit was in use
etc.
So I could tell the broad type of music and if it was heavily compressed or not. Now I listen to plenty of bad recordings because the music is good. so the result would be a big 'meh'.
Or did you mean something completely different?
As has been proved on here many times. Most people love to take ABX tests when they can cheat. What is funny is the one or two who wait until the answers are revealed before pointing out how easily they can hear it. One of the care in the community functions offered by the forum.
And FWIW on your 'test'. from just the bits I would able to tell
DR
Crest factor
average level,
If a drumkit was in use
etc.
So I could tell the broad type of music and if it was heavily compressed or not. Now I listen to plenty of bad recordings because the music is good. so the result would be a big 'meh'.
This argument is getting very silly, I do not know of anyone on here who is of the objective camp who has dissed listening tests... In fact the opposite, those who do designs do listening tests and where possible controlled listening tests. The sense of sight in humans is our main sense and thus does have a huge effect on sighted listening tests, this is a fact not some made up fantasy idea. Those who deny this are misguided.
So what point are you trying to make Kirchhof, what camp are you in or are you like the majority (well the ones who engineer a solution) and use both measurement's and listening tests?
So what point are you trying to make Kirchhof, what camp are you in or are you like the majority (well the ones who engineer a solution) and use both measurement's and listening tests?
I'm above this dispute since 1887...
These days I'm just teasing the camps when they're indulging in excess.
I'm above this dispute since 1887...
These days I'm just teasing the camps when they're indulging in excess.
Well considering you've completely misrepresented most of the arguments you're teasing about, it's a poorly done job.
One thing to poke, another thing entirely to put the wrong words in people's mouths and claim being above it all. The latter tends to succeed in only annoying people. 🙄
- Status
- Not open for further replies.