True. Marketing and fun.
Not what I meant to say.
There are people who understand electronics well but can not hear details in sound well. And there are people who can hear details in sound well but do not understand electronics well.
(And of course there are those who only like to show that they understand electronics well, out of which you can't learn anything from them). The reason I mention this is because I really appreciate those who understand nothing about electronics but they know something that I might need to know. And too often, both sides cannot see what they don't see.
I think that for people like you or Pavel, your ability to hear details in sound could be the thing that differentiate you with other engineers, I mean in your ability to produce products that can be categorized as 'good sounding product', whatever it means.
We all are familiar with Lin topology. This is not my favorite topology. No amplifiers with this topology that I have heard that can be categorized as great amplifier. But I had a long experiment regarding to this topology until I found one that sound 'different'. I couldn't believe that it could sound the way it does. Of course, lots of prototypes have been done to reach to the sound, but still I don't understand which parameter that makes it sound the way it does. Too many variables (especially inside the transistors itself) and less time to investigate. But of course I need to make preliminary guesses so I can benefit from the phenomenon without having to conduct further experiment right away. I hope what I learn from this amp can be implemented in my other amplifiers.
The goal of the above paragraph is to show how an ability to hear a 'different' in sound could possibly lead to findings (preliminary guesses at the moment) in the form of knowledge to build 'better sounding' amplifiers.
No, I don't think that the statement is really meant to be like that.
The opposite is truer. Differently measured but no change in sound heard.
But the statement might originated from the fact that the sound is different but people don't know how and what to be measured. For example, when our ears hear better intelligibility, what variable has changed? When we hear more 'emotions', what variable has changed? The difficulty is not because nothing changes electrically but because there are so many that changes.
Im taking it by slow you dont mean tempo. What do you mean? 25 years as a recording engineer and never heard anyone use that word for anything but tempo. This is an audio site so everyone here is interested in music and critical listening even the engineers. And by the way physics is the basis for engineering. And a few posts ago i put in a link to a slew rate calculator. The 5x slew rate is used because slewing is an input overload condition not normal operation so they are not exactly related so its a buffer.
Look at the results of Pavels test. Ability to hear a difference gets you this. Half prefer one file the other half the other. Thats what using only your ears gets you. Dosnt say anything about whats more acurate ( wire with gain, not an effects box) just what you prefer. Did you try his test?
Low 1/f noise of the decoder stage oscillator will make the output sound solid and stable...which can be interpreted as sounding 'slow' when compared to more noisy clocking.Another example is when an audiophile perceived that thru a certain cd player the music/song sounded so SLOW. What will you measure, slew rate? Full power bandwidth? Playback speed? Hey, where are those who know Physics well?
Dan.
That's easy. Fine a cd player that sounds fast to said audiophile and see what the difference isAnother example is when an audiophile perceived that thru a certain cd player the music/song sounded so SLOW. What will you measure, slew rate? Full power bandwidth? Playback speed? Hey, where are those who know Physics well?
Surveying subjects descriptive reasons for subjective preference and correlation or not with original or loopback recordings brings much more information to the table than just listing preference.
Dan.
You know that less than 50% users here aren't recording engineer. Yes, the proper word is tempo but when i was in blind test and shootout events the word used is slow
I will check your link later to see how this 5x is calculated. You mean safety factor to allow for some input overload??
Nice. This is how an engineer should investigate the phenomena among audiophiles. But rarely happen when the engineer himself can't hear well.
Dan, i wasn't saying that i agree with this but am trying not to go off topic.
That's interesting, Dan - is that based on your experience/measurements or others?
How come people still misinterpret Pavels test in this way? It has already been shown that 90% of the people tested can't differentiate a known volume difference so why would it be interpreted as anything more than a hearing test of these people & their equipment - a audiology test, if you will - it actually tells us nothing about the audibility of differences in the music samples Pavel recorded
??? Do audiophiles just make up new meanings to words that dont make sense to anyone but themselfs?
You know that less than 50% users here aren't recording engineer. Yes, the proper word is tempo but when i was in blind test and shootout events the word used is slow
I will check your link later to see how this 5x is calculated. You mean safety factor to allow for some input overload??
Nice. This is how an engineer should investigate the phenomena among audiophiles. But rarely happen when the engineer himself can't hear well.
Dan, i wasn't saying that i agree with this but am trying not to go off topic.
Difference in tempo is very easy to hear, and even easier to measure, but I doubt 2 decent CD players will have a noticible difference.
Dan, are you saying noise will change the speed of a cd player? Or do you have your own private meaning of the word slow.
Last edited:
I believe they are talking about how the sound is perceived, not that it is measurably faster/slower? What is the cause of this change of perception is the interesting thing
That's easy. Fine a cd player that sounds fast to said audiophile and see what the difference is
I did have a commercial DAC that actually was .6% fast due to an error in the clock divider (verified by a frequency standard). I could not find a single reference to that on the web (and it was a major brand).
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.