No, a real engineer would have sat down discovered what was happening and carefully explained it. It's known as teaching, of course it requires an open mind on both sides.
Ah! At last a point raised that is to the point!
This is a very good question and leads precisely where the crux of the matter lies.
There is a huge difference between what is required for measurement and what (many - not all) people hear. If you've been reading various threads for a long time, you'd have run across Dr. Geddes "GedLee Metric"?
This points to the answer.
Hearing is not by any stretch of the imagination a linear process where the is a 1:1 correspondence between input and output. Measurement equipment however is almost always a linear set of relationships.
But then you may argue that there are "measurement" systems, like MRI and the like that take a "cloud" of data and interpolate. This is true, but this is pretty crude in reality, and the algorithms used for the interpolation vary to some degree, meaning that the "results" are only approximations, ones that may only be similar (tested more than once). And, in the end for this example the human eye/brain is required for interpretation.
Hearing is to a great extent a brain processing system that does pattern recognition and a type of interpolation... what you present it with does NOT result in the same (in your head) "output" twice in a row.
In part that is why you can recognize Edison's voice recorded on foil or if he were recorded in full fidelity 24/384 today.
Yes hearing and perception are good at picking out certain things especially the human voice (as telephony and the Bell frequency choice illustrates)... but surely a linear reproduction system (with good fidelity) can be designed with either op-amps or transistor's for the low level signals...
MRI creates images that a qualified person has to interpret (I am more aware of these and CAT scans than I ever want to be again), I am referring to the more mundane world of control and measurement's, LIGO and ATLAS come to mind here🙂
MRI creates images that a qualified person has to interpret (I am more aware of these and CAT scans than I ever want to be again), I am referring to the more mundane world of control and measurement's, LIGO and ATLAS come to mind here🙂
Ironic that Dr. Geddes by his own statements is firmly in the camp of it's easy today to find numerous competently designed electronics that are indistinguishable from each other.
I have no idea who these "objectivists" are, I've never met one, but rationalists will expect that audibility claims for boxes of gain that measure well by standard metrics are backed with actual ears-only listening tests, rather than "evidence" of the same quality as that supporting alien abductions and anal probing.
Otherwise, it's just flapdoodle.
Flapdoodle! I have nothing to add to the discussion, but I intend to use that word as often as possible. 😉
How to people listen to music? Usually they have one system and they play different songs through it. Not the other way around like ABX.
Yes. And for me, about half of the few times this has happened the EE, if he is open minded 😀, has actually come to the conclusion that he/she does not really know what is going on and it warrants "further investigation".
Don't see the irony.
Perhaps it could be said this way: any given individual's preferences and abilities to perceive <whatever> varies quite a bit.
However, it is important to understand that his criterion is NOT that the electronics be <0.001THD (for example) in fact this is precisely the point that he speaks to... so first we need to throw out the "absolute value" of distortion as the major parameter for predetermining what ought to sound good and what ought not. Ymmv.
Last edited:
And that's totally fine, in fact, it's one of the more fun parts of being an engineer (for me, at least). Those, "hey, check this out, I think I found something interesting" moments.
One cannot stop there as that's only the starting point of the whole shebang, hopefully providing the hypothesis. What did did that further investigation yield? What was learned?
(Well one can stop there, but nothing has been concluded)
Morinix, I am impressed that you have continued to debate here. I kind of wore out over years of this interaction.
In my estimation, you have both the experience and ears to make great audio products. I would not say the same for the others, because even though they have lots of study and lab experience behind them, they don't have the listening capability or open minds to accept what others actually hear.
In my estimation, you have both the experience and ears to make great audio products. I would not say the same for the others, because even though they have lots of study and lab experience behind them, they don't have the listening capability or open minds to accept what others actually hear.
ABX is only one format, there's lots of ways of doing valid listening tests; for example, there's nothing that prevents you from using a variety of material. There's only one rule: no peeking, ears only. That's what separates honest practitioners from hucksters.
SY, curious, if you were here, and I (for example) changed out a <component of the week> and you were listening, and I did not tell you what the difference between part A and part B was, and you could not see the parts, BUT you heard a clear difference, does that count? (how about if I faked you out a few times and replaced with the same part?)
Or does my actinic energy influence and prejudice your hearing and decision making?
Or does my actinic energy influence and prejudice your hearing and decision making?
Last edited:
Clever Hans. Double blind means double blind. If you're not ready to do that to establish audibility of something that has appropriate conventional measurements, you're just playing make-believe.
That is a heck of a statistical base! And even then it perfectly splits through the middle, like random. Truly a lucky roll of the dice.
I have had a couple of old guys tell me/swear by that putting a piece of gold on the search coil improves sensitivity/discrimination.
This would be for 'old school' detectors and not of the complexity of the linked pdf.
Curious and interesting never the less.
Dan.
...to accept what others actually pretend they think they see fit to hear.
Gerhard,
not in desperate search of a market for the ooooh so great audio products I make.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.