8 is a mirrored 0 or 3, which is good.
Your great great grandson will be half Chinese, he will buy his own junk.
Paradox classes are very informative.
Your great great grandson will be half Chinese, he will buy his own junk.
Paradox classes are very informative.
I read about this test in a book by James Moir. I think the book was from the 1960s, and the test was done in the 1950s. It was tests like this which established the broad requirements of hi-fi (e.g. bandwidth 20Hz-20kHz, nonlinear distortion under 1%). Some people today seem to imagine that these requirements were dreamt up by evil engineers while examining slide rules, without any listening taking place at all.benb said:
I suspect the 'audiophile' press would not like it, because such tests may give inconvenient results (such as finding that the old requirements for hi-fi are still valid, and need little or no adjustment if faithful sound reproduction is the aim). 'Audiophiles' often don't want reproduction; they want 'slam', 'air', 'musicality', 'soundstage' etc. The last thing they need is for an acoustic violin to sound like an acoustic violin when heard through their sound system.; far too boring/clinical!
Markw4 said:
I'm not convinced that universities undo that; youngsters now expect to be spoon-fed answers at university too, and their complaints when they are not spoon-fed can affect the university rankings and funding. And in the UK the percentage is not very limited - approaching 50% now. A real university education (such as I had 40 years ago) has almost disappeared here, because everything has to be made easy enough for the average kid to pass the exams without doing much work and without gaining any understanding of the subject.billshurv said:
Well, although not as ancient as you, mine was still long enough ago to do the right stuff. My eldest is in her gap year from a maths/physics degree and seems to be doing OK, but I instilled the learning part into her from an early age.
You reside in a smart society, the brightest is the one who gets an answer first, at the highest dA/dt rate.
The correct answer requires not to think.
In the meantime, the smart society is growing older, more obese and more diabetic by the day.
The demand for smart footwear will double in under a decade and a half.
Same goes for the Chinese, of which there are currently about 1.4B, and their average annual income goes up to an expected $53K by 2040.
By that time, every penny will have been sucked out of their rotting feet, old school style.
The correct answer requires not to think.
In the meantime, the smart society is growing older, more obese and more diabetic by the day.
The demand for smart footwear will double in under a decade and a half.
Same goes for the Chinese, of which there are currently about 1.4B, and their average annual income goes up to an expected $53K by 2040.
By that time, every penny will have been sucked out of their rotting feet, old school style.
Attachments
Last edited:
There is a fourth solution. But I don't have the characters on the cell phone to write it! Take the top of the 6 off and it still is a 6 and change the equal sign to a not equal sign.
Anyone up to a fifth?
Last edited:
There is some evidence that universities don't teach people how to think. Rather they filter out some people who aren't able to succeed there. But, they don't filter on ability to think. Basically, they filter according to IQ.
That being said, IQ doesn't predict anything except ability to succeed in school, given motivation to do the work.
The bottom line, I believe, is that we don't know much about how to teach people how to think. However, Carol Dweck at Stanford has perhaps accomplished the most interesting and useful progress in this area. Unfortunately, they only know how to make it work when professional psychologists are used, not schoolteachers. Dweck refers to it as instilling a growth mindset.
Last edited:
No response on this??
Figured I'd read a few pages quickly and see... it's better for my mental well-being. And then there was this post, focused on something useful. No response. 🙁
Also Scott, I had questions about your statement on the output section of the 797, how that works... provocative carrot waving there!
_-_-
Figured I'd read a few pages quickly and see... it's better for my mental well-being. And then there was this post, focused on something useful. No response. 🙁
Also Scott, I had questions about your statement on the output section of the 797, how that works... provocative carrot waving there!
_-_-
Gain of 30dB, best, no idea. PMA and/or jcx posted an LTSpice study of the 797 output stage years ago where we discussed the semantics of neutralization/positive feedback.
Okay, don't use a curtain, just turn the lights off, have them put on blindfolds, or something so listeners can't determine what's what from their eyes. Worst case, just make it a sighted test.
Yes, there are many possible problems with such tests, mic placement and whatnot, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be done.
Have you missed the point, or have I failed to state it? It;s pretty much the same as the rest of this thread (though the thread is mostly about a certain type of electronic component), and the same as the whole diyaudio forum.
Many people want (or at least say the want, and I presume some of them really do want) "accurate reproduction" of music. This is a setup to attempt to measure accuracy of reproduction.
Just close your eyes and tell if you hear speakers, amps, etc..., and name particular type of distortions caused the sound. It is easy!
Okay. You could do that. I think it happens all the time, more or less, in recording studios, or in small live sound venues. I have miced up some acoustic instruments into a small venue PA system, such a for a jazz group. I can't think of how many of those I did. Dizzy Gillespie, Sun Ra, Dave Brubeck, on and on. This was years ago, of course, when I spent 7 years doing live sound. But we used the best equipment available at the time. During sound check you can walk around on the stage in front of the instruments, out in the house in front of the speakers. Make sure it sounds good out there, at least. But, I still don't see how to apply doing that to building better amplifiers. I guess you can build one, try it in such an application and see how you like it. But suppose you don't quite like it? How do you decide what you need to change to make it better? You can try stuff you think might work. But it would be, I think, exactly what Scott calls tinkering, more than engineering. It's not measuring something to produce some useful numbers to help guide decision making, or application of the scientific method to some problem.
Last edited:
<sigh> I foolishly read again to see what Scott might have said. Guess I will search for threads with 797 in them and hope to hit paydirt. Since I still fascinated by bright moving shiny objects and things like output stages that don't turn off...
But look, gentlemen and trolls, alike, and all between, what counts is that if and when you or a range of persons listen to a given system that what they hear is NOT sibilence on voices, and NOT every cymbal sounding essentially the same. This is the FIRST level. Most systems in my experience fail on the first level. Talking about the first level beyond merely wide bandwidth, and reasonably flat response, and things like that. AND we're going to make the general presumption that the speakers being used are NOT responsible for generating said sibilence (how one figures that out or gets to that point is a different topic/thread, so just take as a given).
The next levels relate to more amorphous qualities, often referred to by terms such as "depth", "space", "openness", "air between instruments/voices" and things along those lines.
One finds that one may achieve the first level alright and find reasonably striking, aka noticeable and easy to hear, differences in these factors, and also in "dynamics".
One would think that it would be trivial to measure IF there was in fact a difference in "dynamics", and I think it ought to be. But I've yet to see anyone run a test of this sort. However, one can hear just such differences in the filters used in the current range of DAC boxes where the filter is selectable. Do the filters change the dynamic range? One can hear this sort of difference when all sorts and manner of things are changed, varied or adjusted.
IF YOU DO NOT and have not heard this sort of thing, then as I said before, you're done, you can quit now, go home, and not worry or argue about it. It makes NO DIFFERENCE in your world.
The problem and confounding factor comes in when one takes what measures like a perfectly fine set of electronics and listens to it. And one hears the factors (some of which I've tried to give language to) that I mentioned, and they clearly are quite different depending on the gear, and in some cases depending on the opamps plugged in. (please, let's assume no anomalous behavior by said opamps?)
I'll give you a purely anecdotal example to laugh about and criticize.
Take the circuit of the Spectral DMC 10. One member here knows it FAR better than anyone else, fwiw. Take the same circuit that was "borrowed" by another company whose name is/was "XY Audio" (two letters, but not XY) and used in one of
their preamps. Now this goes back 20+ years. But the specs on the DMC 10 to this day will be challenging to equal or beat.
They did not sound the same at all. Do not sound the same at all.
AND, I think the "word on the street" is/was that the DMC 10 sounds a bit too "thin" and a bit too "cold" and "dry". Which, fwiw, is how I hear it too... which is why I do not own one, despite it being a classic and one of the best in many ways.
So, what's the difference? Why is it heard by so many as being "that way"??
Delusion? Prejudice?
Guarantee it does not sound like a JC-2 or a Blowtorch!
Why? They both have excellent specs and distortion that ought to be below hearing threshold, right? They both will not clip when any IC would have already clipped, so lots of headroom...
... what's doing it? the power supply? bypassing? capacitor choice? resistors? layout? switches? connectors? solder? wire? insulation? trace size/thickness? chassis material? grounding?
...nothing is doing it, I guess. I guess there's not any real differences to be heard.
Once you get past the basic presentation (and a whole lot of people NEVER have their speakers set up & room set up so that they CAN hear proper stereo - but that's another topic too...) and start hearing "into the mix that's when one notices that something is not right, something is wrong, something is there that wasn't before, something that was there is missing, things mush up, spread out, define themselves clearly, or become ill-defined. AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT HF BOOST, ok??
So, nothing sounds the same. Except for two examples of the same circuit made the same way with the same parts. Then. Otherwise...
But look, gentlemen and trolls, alike, and all between, what counts is that if and when you or a range of persons listen to a given system that what they hear is NOT sibilence on voices, and NOT every cymbal sounding essentially the same. This is the FIRST level. Most systems in my experience fail on the first level. Talking about the first level beyond merely wide bandwidth, and reasonably flat response, and things like that. AND we're going to make the general presumption that the speakers being used are NOT responsible for generating said sibilence (how one figures that out or gets to that point is a different topic/thread, so just take as a given).
The next levels relate to more amorphous qualities, often referred to by terms such as "depth", "space", "openness", "air between instruments/voices" and things along those lines.
One finds that one may achieve the first level alright and find reasonably striking, aka noticeable and easy to hear, differences in these factors, and also in "dynamics".
One would think that it would be trivial to measure IF there was in fact a difference in "dynamics", and I think it ought to be. But I've yet to see anyone run a test of this sort. However, one can hear just such differences in the filters used in the current range of DAC boxes where the filter is selectable. Do the filters change the dynamic range? One can hear this sort of difference when all sorts and manner of things are changed, varied or adjusted.
IF YOU DO NOT and have not heard this sort of thing, then as I said before, you're done, you can quit now, go home, and not worry or argue about it. It makes NO DIFFERENCE in your world.
The problem and confounding factor comes in when one takes what measures like a perfectly fine set of electronics and listens to it. And one hears the factors (some of which I've tried to give language to) that I mentioned, and they clearly are quite different depending on the gear, and in some cases depending on the opamps plugged in. (please, let's assume no anomalous behavior by said opamps?)
I'll give you a purely anecdotal example to laugh about and criticize.
Take the circuit of the Spectral DMC 10. One member here knows it FAR better than anyone else, fwiw. Take the same circuit that was "borrowed" by another company whose name is/was "XY Audio" (two letters, but not XY) and used in one of
their preamps. Now this goes back 20+ years. But the specs on the DMC 10 to this day will be challenging to equal or beat.
They did not sound the same at all. Do not sound the same at all.
AND, I think the "word on the street" is/was that the DMC 10 sounds a bit too "thin" and a bit too "cold" and "dry". Which, fwiw, is how I hear it too... which is why I do not own one, despite it being a classic and one of the best in many ways.
So, what's the difference? Why is it heard by so many as being "that way"??
Delusion? Prejudice?
Guarantee it does not sound like a JC-2 or a Blowtorch!
Why? They both have excellent specs and distortion that ought to be below hearing threshold, right? They both will not clip when any IC would have already clipped, so lots of headroom...
... what's doing it? the power supply? bypassing? capacitor choice? resistors? layout? switches? connectors? solder? wire? insulation? trace size/thickness? chassis material? grounding?
...nothing is doing it, I guess. I guess there's not any real differences to be heard.
Once you get past the basic presentation (and a whole lot of people NEVER have their speakers set up & room set up so that they CAN hear proper stereo - but that's another topic too...) and start hearing "into the mix that's when one notices that something is not right, something is wrong, something is there that wasn't before, something that was there is missing, things mush up, spread out, define themselves clearly, or become ill-defined. AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT HF BOOST, ok??
So, nothing sounds the same. Except for two examples of the same circuit made the same way with the same parts. Then. Otherwise...
Last edited:
Bear, I agree. But, I agree because I hear, or at least used hear better when I was younger, what you describe. Maybe I never heard quite as well as you do, but I know what you mean. And I have trained people to hear it to some degree, most people don't hear of what your are talking about as much naturally as they can learn to hear by training. The brain organizes itself to recognize language and music, not distortion, at least not naturally for most people.
However, if you have been reading recent posts, then you know I wrote about how strong then tendency is to believe one's own senses, one's own eyes, and ears for example. For people that don't hear what we hear, they believe their own senses and use old, probably flawed, research to support, or justify belief, in their own senses. For those like you, you know from your own senses that there just has to be something wrong with the old research, but unfortunately, no one capable of sorting all this out scientifically in today's world is interested in doing it, or maybe has the time and resources to do it. So, what do people do instead? They just keep repeating the same old arguments that support what their senses tell them is real. There is no way out of this but for somebody to do some new science in this area and figure out what's really going on. It's not happening anytime soon as far as I can see.
However, if you have been reading recent posts, then you know I wrote about how strong then tendency is to believe one's own senses, one's own eyes, and ears for example. For people that don't hear what we hear, they believe their own senses and use old, probably flawed, research to support, or justify belief, in their own senses. For those like you, you know from your own senses that there just has to be something wrong with the old research, but unfortunately, no one capable of sorting all this out scientifically in today's world is interested in doing it, or maybe has the time and resources to do it. So, what do people do instead? They just keep repeating the same old arguments that support what their senses tell them is real. There is no way out of this but for somebody to do some new science in this area and figure out what's really going on. It's not happening anytime soon as far as I can see.
who's doing the projection now? - where is your basis for supposing people looking for the additional qualifying psychoacoustic controls to accept listening results as actionable evidence doesn't say they can't/don't "hear things" when "just listening"
and what model of the audio world do you have where "sibilence" isn't a frequency domain property?
and what model of the audio world do you have where "sibilence" isn't a frequency domain property?
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.