Actually, it may "appear" that it is genuine or willful ignorance of cognitive psychology to think that ignorance itself is the most likely explanation for certain human behaviors. It turns out that the tendency to believe one's own eyes and one's own ears over education to the contrary is so compelling that it may be impossible to overcome even to save one's life. Something like that is seen regularly by new minted or infrequently practiced small plane instrument pilots in bad weather. The are not ignorant in any way that they must trust the instruments to guide flight. They simply can't overcome the compelling reality of bodily sensations that the plane is upside down and they need to invert it.
We had the opposite a design manager that was convinced a classic instrument DAC with elaborate de-glitcher was the answer for audio. The AD1862 ended up a me too catchup product.
Is AD done with audio converters? It would be nice to see a refreshed AD1955 with 3.3V digital supply among other things.
I don't have a definitive answer but the margins got low probably why LT never bothered in the first place so I don't see much changing in the future. Bob Adams is now doing things other than audio now.
I've heard of a specific objective test, and I recall mentioning it a few years ago here (I think it was in one of the diyaudio loudspeaker forums) but the one response I saw seemed to denigrate the idea.
Listen to a single musical instrument reproduced through the "target system" - to be on topic, make it two randomly selected signal paths, one of which includes an op-amp.
Next (or first, chosen randomly), have the same musical passage played by the same musician on the same musical instrument, near the speaker that reproduced the recording. Of course, have this all behind a sound-transparent curtain so the audience can't tell from sight what they're hearing.
Thinking about it from an engineering/scientific perspective (and some knowledge of how music/audio is heard and perceived), there are many problems with this, the instrument surely has a different radiation pattern than the speaker and this will change the heard sound (which can be reduced by the auditorium being anechoic, or at least as in a LEDE studio with the stage /speaker in the dead end), and the recording played through the speaker would need to be recorded in an anechoic chamber to eliminate the recording's room tone. There would also be slight differences in the recorded vs. the live performance. One might want the passage to be recorded many times, so that each playback performance is slightly different, as is each live performance, so that the "sameness" of a repeated recording of a single performance doesn't show up as a clue that it's a recording.
I read about this basic idea decades ago, and it was surely done or thought of decades earlier, so there's been plenty of time for this to be done (and I'm sure it has been by some if not all manufacturers), and talked about in the "audiophile press" (I haven't read extensively, but I've not read or heard anything about it among audiophiles, and having seen the negative reactions to the mention of double blind tests, I'm not surprised). But it seems that anyone interested in objectiveness, facts, or "science" concerning audio would want to do this, or at least read a write-up about this being done.
still deep in "category error" - not a test of "whats wrong with op amps"
there are numbers for the variability of most steps in that setup
mic choice, position, orientation, subsequent EQ are all daily "artistic" choices in music recording - the Boston Audio Society has a teset/demo disc with the same instrument recorded with a variety of mics - not subtle
easy to find pages of discussion on say micing a piano
there are numbers for the variability of most steps in that setup
mic choice, position, orientation, subsequent EQ are all daily "artistic" choices in music recording - the Boston Audio Society has a teset/demo disc with the same instrument recorded with a variety of mics - not subtle
easy to find pages of discussion on say micing a piano
The "is it live or is it Memorex" test, from behind a curtain? Not sure how useful that would be, or in what application. For critical listening, say in mixing or maybe trying to hear very small levels of distortion, things like curtains, grill cloths, room reflections, HF attenuation due to distance from sound source, etc., tend to have obscuring effects. They make it harder to detect small differences. But if differences aren't small in the first place, what would the test be trying to accomplish?
That's what I figured. Too bad, would be nice if the ESS and new AK4497 part that is selling at $52 at Digikey changed minds. I have nothing against ESS or AKM, but both have bad datasheets and lack real measurements.
They both handhold key accounts. The ESS apps guy covers all of Asia there was no evidence he ever slept.
Sometimes an education is guilty. People trained in USA during many years to guess the single right answer from a list often don't think of possibility of many equally good solutions, and keep believing in one that they know is right. Here is an example; on FB the majority of people who got their education in USA just give one answer and share the picture...
Attachments
To be fair, I stopped after seeing the 8-4=4 solution (too lazy to keep looking), which only goes to prove Wavebourn's point. 🙂
I doubt the effect claimed is simply because of exposure to multiple choice tests. It might be because of interpretation of the language. For one thing, the wording seems to suggest that finding one would suffice to complete the requested task. There could be a priming effect, or an anchoring effect, due to the presence of the word "one." There could be other explanations as well. It would probably take some psychological research to sort out causality.
Last edited:
You are right, the word "One" adds some hypnotic suggestion, but the task is to "solve" the problem that has 3 equally good solutions. The habit to explore solutions and optimize differs from the one to find always "one right" solution, that's why the topic about opamps goes on for so long... ;-)
possibly not, but in many education systems the focus has been for years on teaching children the answers, not how to think and learn. Luckily Universities do their best to undo that but that only accounts for a limited percentage of the adult population.
In UK was particularly bad as we had a loony in charge for some years who was sold on KPIs for everything, including 5 year olds. Won't say more as close to rule transgression.
I blame apple. In 10 years they went from 'think different' to 'do it this way cos Steve says so'. And people did.
And for light relief Mathematician develops equation for 'hipster paradox' you can model hipsters !
In UK was particularly bad as we had a loony in charge for some years who was sold on KPIs for everything, including 5 year olds. Won't say more as close to rule transgression.
I blame apple. In 10 years they went from 'think different' to 'do it this way cos Steve says so'. And people did.
And for light relief Mathematician develops equation for 'hipster paradox' you can model hipsters !
An old Russian school was good, but now they adopted the same "profession-ready" education training robots...
8 is good, because everything we have is being made in China. 🙂
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.