The almost +-15dB FR must be a feature. I heard one of these (older model) at Burning Amp and it sounded fairly nice.
Lets not forget the problem with the evaluation method itself. Some of those people convinced themselves that their subjective auditioning is sufficient enough to become proof.
Job? You mean he's involved in some kind of business?Are you saying Mark isn't properly investigating it?He keeps repeating what Earl said about it costing too much, I wonder why? Still, if he keeps repeating that and that he hears such-and-such as better that's cheap and more and more people will believe it. Job done.
It's just a phrase, seems to fit the bill JOB DONE | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
I've not heard them, they have a good reputation. I like the concept of full range speakers, so long as not too much SPL is required they are a good option. My Jordans sound fine to me Jordan Eikona - E J Jordan Designs
What I meant to say is that no sound engineer working properly will leave tracks open without signal during pianissimo passages. The signal-to-noise ratio is therefore better than if they had been left open.
We will take the necessary measures by playing on the mask effect so that the signal-to-noise ratio remains acceptable in all cases, even at high listening volume (noise gate + reverb etc.).
It is here that the approaches to the conceptions and ideas that we have about sound differ. We read under the pen of some, who seems based on theories, that 16 bits is more than enough. Sound engineers work in a more empiric way: they listen.
Do the following experiment: Record in 16 bits at a very low level (-40dB) a piece of music. apply the inverse gain during its reproduction, and compare with the original. You will find that the former has lost a lot of presence, detail, life. It is as if he was behind a curtain, or out of focus.
Just as human hearing is able to extract a signal below the noise, which the measurement cannot do, the lack of dots drawing a waveform is felt at low level, on my opinion, whatever say some theorists.
The same is true for sampling frequencies. Hence the interest of 24-96.
Let-me guess .... the Level Matched Double Blind Tests as weapons against the audio pros conspiracy ?
"Okay, Houston, we've had a problem here "... The brain of one of our crew members seems to be attacked by a strange form of space sickness: it loops like the current in a superconductor.Job? You mean he's involved in some kind of business?
Last edited:
I can't see any reason why you'd agree to each other...
I'd say that the myth proposed by D Self about almost all the music that has passed through ne 5532 op-amps is literally busted! Maybe the one that used SSL consoles , but not the one recorded on old Neve. Now Neve reissued the old lines on IC's, but people still prefer the old discrete ones.I wonder why!
@billshurv,
yep, that was from the same Julian Dunn that analyzed the S/PDif jitter problems and some other interesting things as well (for example, the possible accumulation of jitter in "firewire" transmission, afair).
Not to forget about his excellent book about Digital Audio Measurements, since some time available at no charge from Audio Precision.
@scott wurcer,
the "might sound differently" on some days, or only to some people, looks reasonable, but the inherent problem remains the same, it is still the same procedure but you'll simply like it if the results are more compatible to your own beliefs.
Afair Markw4 was quite clear all the time, we are discussing this stuff for a long time , that he thinks that only a certain small percentage of people hears these differences, which is a valid hypothesis given the fact that often normal distributions about such parameters exist and therefore a quite profound spread in the abilities of the population are most likely existent.
A lower bound is set physiologically but - I've provided one two examples before - whenever a large scale experiment was done, this expected spread showed up in the data.
And at the end it brings back the question (there once was a thread about it,closed due to the usual misbehaviour of ever the same members) what would be sufficient evidence to accept the "unbelievable" ?
Suprisingly a statement was accepted a couple of weeks ago that a modern opamp not only measures better, but is audible better than the 711 .
OTOH whenever someone reported "blind" listening test results (done on a level a typical diyer could do/repeat at home) contradicting the usual "belief" it was dismissed, not so "amateurish" experiments didn't get any appreciation either ("total crap" comes to mind).
yep, that was from the same Julian Dunn that analyzed the S/PDif jitter problems and some other interesting things as well (for example, the possible accumulation of jitter in "firewire" transmission, afair).
Not to forget about his excellent book about Digital Audio Measurements, since some time available at no charge from Audio Precision.
@scott wurcer,
the "might sound differently" on some days, or only to some people, looks reasonable, but the inherent problem remains the same, it is still the same procedure but you'll simply like it if the results are more compatible to your own beliefs.
Afair Markw4 was quite clear all the time, we are discussing this stuff for a long time , that he thinks that only a certain small percentage of people hears these differences, which is a valid hypothesis given the fact that often normal distributions about such parameters exist and therefore a quite profound spread in the abilities of the population are most likely existent.
A lower bound is set physiologically but - I've provided one two examples before - whenever a large scale experiment was done, this expected spread showed up in the data.
And at the end it brings back the question (there once was a thread about it,closed due to the usual misbehaviour of ever the same members) what would be sufficient evidence to accept the "unbelievable" ?
Suprisingly a statement was accepted a couple of weeks ago that a modern opamp not only measures better, but is audible better than the 711 .
OTOH whenever someone reported "blind" listening test results (done on a level a typical diyer could do/repeat at home) contradicting the usual "belief" it was dismissed, not so "amateurish" experiments didn't get any appreciation either ("total crap" comes to mind).
Are you referring to the differences he calls better whilst refusing to attempt any kind of measurement?
@DPH,
we had some discussions about the underlying problem of these imaging methods wrt Oohashi et al. in the past, after Craig Bennett's publications about the problem:
http://prefrontal.org/files/posters/Bennett-Salmon-2009.pdf
As short presentation accompanied by their more refined publication.
They used a dead salmon as an example what could happen if _no_ correction for the multiple comparison problem was used. In this case it was an active region in the brain of the dead salmon.
A moderator, who always stated that Oohashi et al. were flawed, but never came up with arguments before, jumped on the train and asserted that Oohashi et al. did not do multiple comparions ( ), and later that they did not use any correction for the multiple comparison problem.
When it was pointed out that they actually did use a correction method for the multiple comparison problem, the assertion was changed to, that it was the wrong correction method because they should have used a method introduced by Benjamin/Hochberg.
While the Benjamini/Hochberg is a better balanced method (means more balanced wrt avoiding false positive but retain statistical power) the method Oohashi et al. used was the more conservative one, means lowered the risk of false positives by accepting the higher risk of false negatives.
To be fair, newer publications since ~2011 (like you mentioned) aruged based on large scale tests on simulated data, that better methods exist compared to the one that Oohashis et al. used.
Where is the time machine when you need one ....
Beside the not so important audio related issue, I was shocked reading that so many experiments were done without usage of any corrections method at all.
Actually I'd never thought that these machines even allow such use (thinking about the consequences of wrong diagnosises)
we had some discussions about the underlying problem of these imaging methods wrt Oohashi et al. in the past, after Craig Bennett's publications about the problem:
http://prefrontal.org/files/posters/Bennett-Salmon-2009.pdf
As short presentation accompanied by their more refined publication.
They used a dead salmon as an example what could happen if _no_ correction for the multiple comparison problem was used. In this case it was an active region in the brain of the dead salmon.
A moderator, who always stated that Oohashi et al. were flawed, but never came up with arguments before, jumped on the train and asserted that Oohashi et al. did not do multiple comparions (
), and later that they did not use any correction for the multiple comparison problem. When it was pointed out that they actually did use a correction method for the multiple comparison problem, the assertion was changed to, that it was the wrong correction method because they should have used a method introduced by Benjamin/Hochberg.
While the Benjamini/Hochberg is a better balanced method (means more balanced wrt avoiding false positive but retain statistical power) the method Oohashi et al. used was the more conservative one, means lowered the risk of false positives by accepting the higher risk of false negatives.
To be fair, newer publications since ~2011 (like you mentioned) aruged based on large scale tests on simulated data, that better methods exist compared to the one that Oohashis et al. used.
Where is the time machine when you need one ....
Beside the not so important audio related issue, I was shocked reading that so many experiments were done without usage of any corrections method at all.
Actually I'd never thought that these machines even allow such use (thinking about the consequences of wrong diagnosises)
Last edited:
Now you're accusing me of intellectual dishonesty.
Now you're acting like JC. Do you think this supposed to bother me?
Here is the link to the Waxtime Records shop. There are some real old time gems in there if you browse around.
Wax time LP's - Record Shop X
Wax time LP's - Record Shop X
A pros pros Sabine Hossenfelder, her book "Lost in math" is an interesting read (to me of course and IMHO)
@scott wurcer,
Really,do I?
Weren't you talking a short time ago (if not regretting) about the hostility (can't remember the exact wording)?
Could it be that assuming the worst intention in some others post eventually adds to this?
In short, I am totally at a loss why you mentioned JC in this context....
@scott wurcer,
Really,do I?
Weren't you talking a short time ago (if not regretting) about the hostility (can't remember the exact wording)?
Could it be that assuming the worst intention in some others post eventually adds to this?
In short, I am totally at a loss why you mentioned JC in this context....
Last edited:
For what I had read from him, while D Self is not at all one of my prefered authors ;-) i should half agree with him on it but say that "busted" is kinda exaggerated. About the original Signetics NE5532, I should only say they have no obvious defects but were just "boring".
But why to refer on those dinosaurs (741, TL07x, NE553x) ? So many outstanding modern ICs, both voltage or current feedback, depending on the applications ?
About old NEVE , may-be people confuse the talent of some producers/sound engineers + musicians +big studios with fantastic acoustic and the gear used ? Nostalgia ? Or may-be, indeed a special character ?
Anyway, talking about the technology of this period is beating a near dead horse: Digital is everywhere nowadays. It is just a pity that this technology came too late, at a time when creativity has faded out.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.