Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
I'm not talking about marketing. In fact, the marketeers would be
more likely to agree with him. It sells more amps. Oh, you mean the part about the majority of amps sound the same, and *all* the cables sound the same? That's the part that sells more amps? No, marketing departments say the opposite. Oh. So now you *don't* think I would sell them more amps. I see. What the hell are you talking about? I said that the marketing departments would most likely agree with you. They DON'T say that their amps sound the same as their competition. I've left the discussion unsnipped above. Read closely. |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... Answer the question...have you ever used test equipment to measure distortion? What's the difference between accuracy and precision? Accuracy is the deviation from the mean; precision is the deviation from the sample mean. The dartboard analogy is commonly used to describe the difference, where accuracy represents the distance of the cluster of darts from the bullseye and precision represents the distance of the darts from one another. But, since I know you like to parse words, I'll stand by my first sentence as the true definition. Hopefully it holds up in court. Now answer my question. Yes. |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... I'm sure you think you heard a difference. But guess what? Your test equipment (ears) is very inaccurate. No, they're not. They're perfectly accurate. They're the absolute definition of accuracy. No, the definition of accuracy is perfect reproduction of the input signal. The signal reaching your brain, before it's even processed by the brain no less, is a highly distorted version of the sound wave that hit your ear drum. Therefore, by definition, it is not an accurate representation of the input signal. It's perfectly accurate for the person hearing it. I didn't say that. I asked you if you've ever experienced optical illusions? I'll assume your answer to that is yes, and I'll use that as evidence to support the fact that human sensory systems are poor measuring devices. I see. So they're incapable of reliably reading output from testing equipment? What I see in general? No, it's very unreliable. That does not mean, however, that I can't extract some of the information on the computer screen. Which information would that be exactly? What happens to the other information? You say it's not because optical illusions exist. Then you say what you see on your test readout is not an optical illusion. OK. The sounds coming from my speakers are not an auditory illusion. Why would they be? They may or may not be. There are certainly some things that you hear that aren't really there and things that are there that you don't hear. The point is that your ears are poor measuring devices. In order to argue against this fact, you'd need to discount an entire field. Are you willing to do that? That's only from the perspective of measuring equipment to begin with. From the perspective of a person listening to music... well that's the only perspective that matters. What is the point of measuring amplifiers, anyway? |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... I'm not talking about marketing. In fact, the marketeers would be more likely to agree with him. It sells more amps. Oh, you mean the part about the majority of amps sound the same, and *all* the cables sound the same? That's the part that sells more amps? No, marketing departments say the opposite. Oh. So now you *don't* think I would sell them more amps. I see. What the hell are you talking about? I said that the marketing departments would most likely agree with you. They'd agree with me that I couldn't tell the difference between any cables, and most amps? |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
"jeffc" wrote in message ... Now if the human ear can hear distortion and measuring equipment can't, then there's something wrong with the measuring equipment, user or technique. Here is the crux of the problem with this guy. He believes that his ears are superior to test equipment and that there is not test equipment that is good enough to hear the differences! Therefore, there is a mysterious unknown component that amp designers now how to acheive yet have no ability to measure. Is that not what you are attempting to say? Les |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
I can tell the difference, and I can tell you that the auditory system
is neither accurate nor precise. But precision is what we're interested in here because we're interested in ddetectability, not the noise in the system The auditory system is by definition 100% accurate, if not very precise. That is the only reasonable definition of accuracy when it comes to making sounds we're going to listen to. Wrong. Accuracy, by definition, means that the output matches the input. The reference, therefore, is the sound wave. The following are five things that you don't know but argue against despite the overwhelming evidence that has been presented to you: 1) that test equipment is more precise (and more accurate) than the human auditory system. Test equipment is more precise but not accurate. Wrong. Test equipment is more accurate. That is, unless you're willing to take the position that all manufacturers are lying about the accuracy of their devices. So what accounts for this inaccuracy anyway? (note also that it's worth bringing up again the point I made about bypassing test equipment completely in order to arrive at the same results - you've ignored this repeatedly) 2) distortion measurements between any two car audio amplifiers behaving linearly are lower than the distortion thresholds that can be perceived by humans within the same context. Ah, "behaving linearly". Yes, in other words, not clipping. I've stipulated this aspect from the very beginning, and when into greater depth when Tony asked about it. 3) the human auditory system intentionally distorts the incoming signal to better suit its needs, and this distortion is higher than the distortion that a microphone introduces into the signal. Irrelevant. The distortion is different, but no matter. It still exists. And distortion is cumulative. How could it be irrelevant when it's the topic of discussion? When we're discussing whether or not humans can perceive the distortion present in modern day amplifiers, it's essential to know how much distortion is present and what the distortion threshold is for humans. Knowing the distortion introduced by the auditory system is a key component to answering the latter question. 4) people who have published papers on human psychophysics and have benched amplifiers tend to know how to read their instruments, and therefore, there isn't an epidemic of fabricated data in those fields. So that proves that the amplifiers they tested work within the limits of their test equipment. What do you mean by "work within the limits of their test equipment"? 5) controls are important to implement in any test because it allows you to isolate variables and therefore assign relationships between the observations and the remaining variables - as such, you cannot pick and choose which of the variables to assign the observation to. Obviously controls are important. What's interesting is how you throw the whole scientific process out the window out of desperation to prove me wrong (for whatever reason know only to you.) For example, how could you possibly know what controls were used? You told me. You agree (now) that all amplifiers exhibit distortion. I always have. Your quote early in this thread was to the contrary. No, it wasn't. I provided a quote where I specifically said that all amplifiers exhibit distortion. You're either ignoring that or flat out lying. So we're past it - you goofed, started backpedaling, now claim you've said it all along. Fine. I believe you actually mean it. I did say it all along. I provided evidence that you've apparently chosen to ignore. And I've said it in this very newsgroup for years. Long before you ever graced us with your presence. You haven't yet performed this test, even though you think that you have (see #5 above). How would you possibly be able to determine that from where you are? I've chosen to believe what you say. Shouldn't I? |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
what are you talking about?
jeffc wrote: "Eddie Runner" wrote in message ... Test gear can easily measure one 100th of a Decebel, as well as 1000th of one percent of THD very accuratly.... How can he argue against this? Maybe he has never used any test equipment....??? Another one who doesn't understand the difference between accuracy and precision. |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
No, the definition of accuracy is perfect reproduction of the input
signal. The signal reaching your brain, before it's even processed by the brain no less, is a highly distorted version of the sound wave that hit your ear drum. Therefore, by definition, it is not an accurate representation of the input signal. It's perfectly accurate for the person hearing it. Sorry, but that's not the definition of accuracy. I didn't say that. I asked you if you've ever experienced optical illusions? I'll assume your answer to that is yes, and I'll use that as evidence to support the fact that human sensory systems are poor measuring devices. I see. So they're incapable of reliably reading output from testing equipment? Are you trying to imply that our visual system has no limitations? What I see in general? No, it's very unreliable. That does not mean, however, that I can't extract some of the information on the computer screen. Which information would that be exactly? What happens to the other information? Some of it is discarded, some of it is distorted, and some of it is lost due to aliasing. |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
I was right .. you dont know the first thing about audio test
equipment....!! For all intents and prposes test equipment is double blind! In that it is verified and reverified... Any test gear will need calibration and much of the test gear has ways to calibrate it that must be performed often and sometimes you might even do this for each test to make sure the test is accurate.... You can get test gear cheap on Ebay, my advice it to buy some and start learning about the real world of audio... It really is a step above how you read the stereo magazines and believe everything now... Eddie Runner http://www.twfer.com jeffc wrote: So are your examples of reading your test equipment. Did you do double blind readings of your test equipment to make sure you were reading the results correctly? If the readout says "1.2087" do you doubt yourself and think that maybe if you got really precise photography equipment and computer image recognition, then in fact the readout might really say "1.2137"? Somehow, I doubt it. |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
and the accuracy vs precision horse ****....
ha ha ha ha !!!!!!!!!!!! ha ha ha ha If he doesnt have any technical expertise, he tries to baffle us wit his bull****.... ha ha ha maybe he is a stereo salesman???? MZ wrote: How can he argue against this? Maybe he has never used any test equipment....??? Another one who doesn't understand the difference between accuracy and precision. Answer the question...have you ever used test equipment to measure distortion? |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
jeffc wrote:
I suggest you read up on the actual problem You suggest Mark goes and reads to prove himself wrong?? Why cant you prove he is wrong? Your not even suggesting any reading material... ha ha ha |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... I can tell the difference, and I can tell you that the auditory system is neither accurate nor precise. But precision is what we're interested in here because we're interested in ddetectability, not the noise in the system The auditory system is by definition 100% accurate, if not very precise. That is the only reasonable definition of accuracy when it comes to making sounds we're going to listen to. Wrong. Accuracy, by definition, means that the output matches the input. The reference, therefore, is the sound wave. There is no sound wave input. Sound requires some medium, such as air or water. The following are five things that you don't know but argue against despite the overwhelming evidence that has been presented to you: 1) that test equipment is more precise (and more accurate) than the human auditory system. Test equipment is more precise but not accurate. Wrong. Test equipment is more accurate. That is, unless you're willing to take the position that all manufacturers are lying about the accuracy of their devices. So what accounts for this inaccuracy anyway? The fact that they, like you, wouldn't know the difference between accuracy and precision until they Googled for it. 2) distortion measurements between any two car audio amplifiers behaving linearly are lower than the distortion thresholds that can be perceived by humans within the same context. Ah, "behaving linearly". Yes, in other words, not clipping. Not exactly the same thing (there are other forms of liner distortion), but it still leaves out non-linear distortion! So that proves that the amplifiers they tested work within the limits of their test equipment. What do you mean by "work within the limits of their test equipment"? It seems pretty obvious to me. Unless you're going to claim perfect testing equipment now. Obviously controls are important. What's interesting is how you throw the whole scientific process out the window out of desperation to prove me wrong (for whatever reason know only to you.) For example, how could you possibly know what controls were used? You told me. No, I didn't. Your quote early in this thread was to the contrary. No, it wasn't. Yes, it was. You said "Because the RadioShack special will reproduce the sound with literally no distortion." There aren't many interpretations of that you can use to weasel out of it. I provided a quote where I specifically said that all amplifiers exhibit distortion. You're either ignoring that or flat out lying. I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying it contradicts what you wrote earlier. i.e. backpedaling. You haven't yet performed this test, even though you think that you have (see #5 above). How would you possibly be able to determine that from where you are? I've chosen to believe what you say. Shouldn't I? You haven't been given enough information. Which seems to be how you do all your testing and conclusions? |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Im prolly older than you and Mark put together...
I appreciate the complement... jeffc wrote: Eddie, you're a little over your head in these adult arguments. How about if you step aside, stop screaming like a little kid for a few minutes, and let MZ and me handle it. |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
"Les" wrote in message ... "jeffc" wrote in message ... Now if the human ear can hear distortion and measuring equipment can't, then there's something wrong with the measuring equipment, user or technique. Here is the crux of the problem with this guy. He believes that his ears are superior to test equipment and that there is not test equipment that is good enough to hear the differences! What about my sentence would lead you to that conclusion? Poor reading comprehension, or just a desperate attempt to find a witch? |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... You didn't say "perfect" anywhere in that first quote. That was another discussion later on. You said it will REPRODUCE THE SOUND WITH LITERALLY NO DISTORTION. And then you wonder where I got that idea from. At some point, it's going to occur to you that *you're* the problem here. Your reading comprehension is clearly lacking. What about "literally no distortion" could I possibly have misinterpreted? |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
you cant answer those questions
so you tell me to run along.... ha ha ha you have NO basis in fact... jeffc wrote: "Eddie Runner" wrote in message ... Have you ever tested cables? Have you ever tested amps? I have!! No shortage of people who don't want to pay attention here. Run along now Eddie. |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
"jeffc" wrote in message ... It's perfectly accurate for the person hearing it. And yet another major misconception in this guys logic. That is not the definition of accuracy. Would you say that a person that has high frequency hearing loss would have perfectly accurate hearing? That is what you imply and yet it is not true. This is where he goes wrong, and where no amount of fact and scientific evidence will get through his thick head. He believes that everyone that hears something is hearing is with perfect accuracy because that is the way they heard it. That means that everyone can have there own magical aspect to sound. He is a marketers dream. Les |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
|
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Wrong. Accuracy, by definition, means that the output matches the
input. The reference, therefore, is the sound wave. There is no sound wave input. Sound requires some medium, such as air or water. Yeah, hence the sound wave. It is the input to the system, whether the system is the microphone or the ear. Wrong. Test equipment is more accurate. That is, unless you're willing to take the position that all manufacturers are lying about the accuracy of their devices. So what accounts for this inaccuracy anyway? The fact that they, like you, wouldn't know the difference between accuracy and precision until they Googled for it. I didn't google for it. It's common knowledge. Show me a website anywhere that describes the difference as I described it - as the deviation from the mean and sample mean, respectively. Yes, in other words, not clipping. Not exactly the same thing (there are other forms of liner distortion), but it still leaves out non-linear distortion! In the field, when people refer to an amplifier "behaving linearly" they mean not clipping. I forgot that you weren't in the field, had no knowledge of the field, don't belong to any organizations in the field, and don't read any of the papers in the field. My mistake. So that proves that the amplifiers they tested work within the limits of their test equipment. What do you mean by "work within the limits of their test equipment"? It seems pretty obvious to me. Unless you're going to claim perfect testing equipment now. No, your sentence is not coherent. Amplifiers working within the limits of the test equipment? Obviously controls are important. What's interesting is how you throw the whole scientific process out the window out of desperation to prove me wrong (for whatever reason know only to you.) For example, how could you possibly know what controls were used? You told me. No, I didn't. It was the topic of the post you made on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 2:22 PM. I provided a quote where I specifically said that all amplifiers exhibit distortion. You're either ignoring that or flat out lying. I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying it contradicts what you wrote earlier. i.e. backpedaling. How could it be backpedaling when I've said in this newsgroup for years that amplifiers produce distortion? You're intentionally arguing semantics because you've realized your argument holds no water and you've already had 4 separate people call you out on it. |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
Your reading comprehension is clearly lacking.
What about "literally no distortion" could I possibly have misinterpreted? Why would you snip the rest of my post? Therein lies the answer to your question. |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
"jeffc" wrote in message ... "Les" wrote in message ... "jeffc" wrote in message ... Now if the human ear can hear distortion and measuring equipment can't, then there's something wrong with the measuring equipment, user or technique. Here is the crux of the problem with this guy. He believes that his ears are superior to test equipment and that there is not test equipment that is good enough to hear the differences! What about my sentence would lead you to that conclusion? Poor reading comprehension, or just a desperate attempt to find a witch? My reading comprehension goes to the thread as a whole, not just one sentence. You have claimed to hear differences in amps, differences that test equipment cannot, then you go on to say that if the equipment cannot detect the differences then it is flawed. So you have claimed to hear a difference that test equipment cannot, therefore the test equipment is not as good as your ears making your ears superior. No attempts to find anything, I have merely put your thoughts from different threads together. Les |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
he has Mark,
You Les and now Tom Noiusaine and me against him... (all pretty knowledgeable folks in the audio feild) and he is still churnin out the bull****... he must be tryin out for the olympic debateing team or something.... ha ha ha Les wrote: "jeffc" wrote in message ... Now if the human ear can hear distortion and measuring equipment can't, then there's something wrong with the measuring equipment, user or technique. Here is the crux of the problem with this guy. He believes that his ears are superior to test equipment and that there is not test equipment that is good enough to hear the differences! Therefore, there is a mysterious unknown component that amp designers now how to acheive yet have no ability to measure. Is that not what you are attempting to say? Les |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... Wrong. Accuracy, by definition, means that the output matches the input. The reference, therefore, is the sound wave. There is no sound wave input. Sound requires some medium, such as air or water. Yeah, hence the sound wave. It is the input to the system, whether the system is the microphone or the ear. We are talking about amplifiers. There is no sound input to an amplifier. Do you just enjoy pedantic arguments? The fact that they, like you, wouldn't know the difference between accuracy and precision until they Googled for it. I didn't google for it. It's common knowledge. Riiiiiiiiiiight. Ho! Good one. Show me a website anywhere that describes the difference as I described it - as the deviation from the mean and sample mean, respectively. Funny, the second one I found looks suspiciously like that. Yes, in other words, not clipping. Not exactly the same thing (there are other forms of liner distortion), but it still leaves out non-linear distortion! In the field, when people refer to an amplifier "behaving linearly" they mean not clipping. Well duh! If the amplifier was behaving linearly, we'd be doing pretty darn well, wouldn't we? So that proves that the amplifiers they tested work within the limits of their test equipment. What do you mean by "work within the limits of their test equipment"? It seems pretty obvious to me. Unless you're going to claim perfect testing equipment now. No, your sentence is not coherent. Amplifiers working within the limits of the test equipment? They work within the limits at which they can be tested. Is it hard work pretending not to understand what I say? I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying it contradicts what you wrote earlier. i.e. backpedaling. How could it be backpedaling when I've said in this newsgroup for years that amplifiers produce distortion? I don't know. It *could* be because you said "the RadioShack special will reproduce the sound with literally no distortion." |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
"Les" wrote in message ... What about my sentence would lead you to that conclusion? Poor reading comprehension, or just a desperate attempt to find a witch? My reading comprehension goes to the thread as a whole, not just one sentence. You have claimed to hear differences in amps, differences that test equipment cannot, then you go on to say that if the equipment cannot detect the differences then it is flawed. So you have claimed to hear a difference that test equipment cannot... I never claimed any such thing. Please continue your witch hunt. |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
That's what I thought.
"Eddie Runner" wrote in message ... what are you talking about? jeffc wrote: "Eddie Runner" wrote in message ... Test gear can easily measure one 100th of a Decebel, as well as 1000th of one percent of THD very accuratly.... How can he argue against this? Maybe he has never used any test equipment....??? Another one who doesn't understand the difference between accuracy and precision. |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... No, the definition of accuracy is perfect reproduction of the input signal. The signal reaching your brain, before it's even processed by the brain no less, is a highly distorted version of the sound wave that hit your ear drum. Therefore, by definition, it is not an accurate representation of the input signal. It's perfectly accurate for the person hearing it. Sorry, but that's not the definition of accuracy. It's the only definition. It's the "truth" discussed here, at least in the context of listening to reproduced music http://www.flatsurv.com/accuprec.htm I see. So they're incapable of reliably reading output from testing equipment? Are you trying to imply that our visual system has no limitations? Obviously not. Now answer the question. |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
"Les" wrote in message ... "jeffc" wrote in message ... It's perfectly accurate for the person hearing it. And yet another major misconception in this guys logic. That is not the definition of accuracy. Would you say that a person that has high frequency hearing loss would have perfectly accurate hearing? That is what you imply and yet it is not true. That is the only standard by which he hears. Accuracy is relative. That person should hear the exact same thing in a concert hall that he does when he listens to his stereo. If the same signal gets through, then it's completely accurate. In other words, the "fidelity" in "high fidelity". Accuracy is truth. Accuracy is reality. And accuracy is relative. This has nothing at all to do with precision. Obviously, human hearing is not as precise as any decent testing device. But the accuracy of any such testing device is relative to the listening experience. Test equipment cannot be more accurate than the listener. That's like saying the notes that Beethoven wrote on paper are somehow more accurate than the sound he wished to be played on the piano. The sound he wanted was known. That is the model. The model is not the printed music. You are looking at it backwards. |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, hence the sound wave. It is the input to the system, whether the
system is the microphone or the ear. We are talking about amplifiers. There is no sound input to an amplifier. Do you just enjoy pedantic arguments? Try to keep up. Me: "I can tell you that the auditory system is neither accurate nor precise. But precision is what we're interested in here because we're interested in ddetectability." You: "The auditory system is by definition 100% accurate." Me: "Wrong. Accuracy, by definition, means that the output matches the input. The reference, therefore, is the sound wave." So you're incorrect that the auditory system is 100% accurate. This has nothing to do with amplifiers. It has to do with the accuracy of the auditory system. Show me a website anywhere that describes the difference as I described it - as the deviation from the mean and sample mean, respectively. Funny, the second one I found looks suspiciously like that. Let's see a link. I asked you to show me. If you're making claims that I don't know what it means, even though I provided definitions, then the burden of proof is on you. I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying it contradicts what you wrote earlier. i.e. backpedaling. How could it be backpedaling when I've said in this newsgroup for years that amplifiers produce distortion? I don't know. It *could* be because you said "the RadioShack special will reproduce the sound with literally no distortion." Could it be that I specifically said that amplifiers produce distortion? I said this many times. I've said this for years. You're just too stubborn to admit that you're wrong. Instead you like to throw accusations at me that don't stick. You've proven to be disingenuous and too stubborn to see evidence that's staring you right in the face. 1. You accuse me of trying to portray amplifiers as not producing distortion. I provided evidence to you that I have never believed this to be true. You've ignored the evidence. 2. You accuse me of looking up the answer to your precision vs. accuracy question on google. You were unable to find any websites that offered the definition I offered. You stick by your outrageous claims. 3. You continually insist that the human auditory system is 100% accurate. It has been demonstrated to you that this isn't the case when I presented to you what the definition of accuracy is (it's funny that you didn't know the definition yourself, but you asked me the question anyway). You still adhere to your faulty notions. 4. Professionals in the field are trying to teach you how these devices work, which you've admittedly never constructed or designed yourself. Yet you refuse to listen, claiming you know more about it despite the fact that you've never delved into any of this before. That is the epitome of stubbornness - to refuse to learn even when faced with information that is new to you. 5. I've offered to back all of the claims I've made about the human auditory system with papers and texts in the field. You've offered no such backing with your rebuttals. That's sheer arrogance. |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, but that's not the definition of accuracy.
It's the only definition. It's the "truth" discussed here, at least in the context of listening to reproduced music http://www.flatsurv.com/accuprec.htm I've already provided the definition to you and you accepted it, even claiming that I got it from somewhere else. Your argument is circular. You're claiming that the accuracy of the human auditory system is based on...the human auditory system. No, it's based on the stimulus that the auditory system is "measuring". Therefore, if there's a deviation between the stimulus and the "output" of the auditory system, then it's inaccurate. And indeed, it can be shown quite easily that the "output" of the auditory system, either in terms of perception or the physiological encoding of the stimulus, does not match the input to the auditory system. Hence, the auditory system is not 100% accurate as you claim. |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... Sorry, but that's not the definition of accuracy. It's the only definition. It's the "truth" discussed here, at least in the context of listening to reproduced music http://www.flatsurv.com/accuprec.htm I've already provided the definition to you and you accepted it, even claiming that I got it from somewhere else. Your argument is circular. You're claiming that the accuracy of the human auditory system is based on...the human auditory system. No I'm not. It's based on how the sound reached his brain (or inner ear, or outer ear, or however you want to look at it) when the music was first played, and how it reached his brain after it was recorded and played back. The first case is the standard reference. The second case can theoretically be only as accurate, but never more. And in practice it will *always* be less. The difference in accuracy might be below the threshold of perceptibility. But that is the goal. At any step in the reproductive process that loss or distortion can occur. The fact that human hearing is not very precise isn't important. As long as your model for accuracy is based on some set of value related to precision, you might miss the boat. You're using the wrong model. e.g. http://www.lavardin.com/aes-E.html Now, I'm not saying this is correct or incorrect. But I am saying that he's on the right track questioning the classic model. Now, there was a time when I knew everything in the world there was to know, like you do know. But at some point you're going to realize that Newtonian physics couldn't explain everything, and then Einstein came along. But relativity couldn't explain everything, and then Quantum Physics came along. But Quantum Physics can't explain everything, etc. And so one day you'll wake up and learn something new that day, and find yourself in the strange situation of knowing more than the day before, when you knew everything. |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... Show me a website anywhere that describes the difference as I described it - as the deviation from the mean and sample mean, respectively. Funny, the second one I found looks suspiciously like that. Let's see a link. I asked you to show me. Sorry, I left the link off by mistake. It was http://www.flatsurv.com/accuprec.htm By the way, your assertion that this is common knowledge is absolutely laughable. I don't know. It *could* be because you said "the RadioShack special will reproduce the sound with literally no distortion." Could it be that I specifically said that amplifiers produce distortion? No, that's not it. It's that you said "the RadioShack special will reproduce the sound with literally no distortion." as one of your very first posts in this thread. That's what gave me the insane notion that you might think amps can reproduce sound with literally no distortion. Call me crazy. I said this many times. I've said this for years. You're just too stubborn to admit that you're wrong. Are you insane? We've been discussing this for 2 days, and you say "the RadioShack special will reproduce the sound with literally no distortion." and I'm supposed to go back in history and find out what you've been saying for the past several years? Do you realize what a moron you sound like? 1. You accuse me of trying to portray amplifiers as not producing distortion. I provided evidence to you that I have never believed this to be true. You've ignored the evidence. OK, you're a moron. |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
No I'm not. It's based on how the sound reached his brain (or inner ear,
or outer ear, or however you want to look at it) when the music was first played, and how it reached his brain after it was recorded and played back. Ok, then what you're referring to instead is the accuracy of the recording/playback, not the accuracy of the human auditory system. You need to tell me when you change subjects. We were discussing your comment that your ears are "perfectly accurate. They're the absolute definition of accuracy." Now, there was a time when I knew everything in the world there was to know, like you do know. But at some point you're going to realize that Newtonian physics couldn't explain everything, and then Einstein came along. But relativity couldn't explain everything, and then Quantum Physics came along. But Quantum Physics can't explain everything, etc. And so one day you'll wake up and learn something new that day, and find yourself in the strange situation of knowing more than the day before, when you knew everything. No, everyone knows with certainty that the human auditory system is not 100% accurate. Sorry to burst your bubble. |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... No, everyone knows with certainty that the human auditory system is not 100% accurate. Sorry to burst your bubble. Best of luck in your future witch hunts Zarella. I see how important they are to you. |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, I left the link off by mistake. It was
http://www.flatsurv.com/accuprec.htm I don't see any references to the mean or sample mean - the basis of my definition. Am I overlooking it? Or are you referring to the dart board analogy that I referred to? I'm afraid to break it to you that was something I remember from my high school physics class years ago. As I said, it's pretty much the standard analogy for illustrating the difference. By the way, your assertion that this is common knowledge is absolutely laughable. It's common knowledge to scientists (which I am) and to folks with physics degrees (which I have) who are tested on this very concept in physics 101. I don't know. It *could* be because you said "the RadioShack special will reproduce the sound with literally no distortion." Could it be that I specifically said that amplifiers produce distortion? No, that's not it. It's that you said "the RadioShack special will reproduce the sound with literally no distortion." as one of your very first posts in this thread. That's what gave me the insane notion that you might think amps can reproduce sound with literally no distortion. Call me crazy. Ok, you're crazy. If you wish to ignore half the posts I made, that's your perogative. I said this many times. I've said this for years. You're just too stubborn to admit that you're wrong. Are you insane? We've been discussing this for 2 days, and you say "the RadioShack special will reproduce the sound with literally no distortion." and I'm supposed to go back in history and find out what you've been saying for the past several years? Do you realize what a moron you sound like? You haven't been paying attention? You don't recall that one of the key things I've been repeating over and over again this whole time is that the distortion produced by an amplifier is far less than the distortion detectable by the human auditory system? (in case you're counting, that's the 6th time I've said that) I suggest you seek medical help. You've likely sustained a blow to the head recently which is causing you to forget half of the things you read. |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
Best of luck in your future witch hunts Zarella. I see how important they
are to you. Does this mean you're leaving? Because I think I speak for the majority in here when I say good riddance. |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
jeffc wrote:
No, that's not it. It's that you said "the RadioShack special will reproduce the sound with literally no distortion." as one of your very first posts in this thread. That's what gave me the insane notion that you might think amps can reproduce sound with literally no distortion. Call me crazy. I dont see anything particularly wrong with what Mark said. You keep repeating it as if you think there is something wrong there! Please tell us what you think it is..!!! NOTHING can pass sound with no distortion whatsoever, the air itself changes the sounds we hear... NO amp I have ever seen had absolutely no distortion and I know Mark doesnt mean that... Do you think he does mean that?? Maybe your taking Marks words to literally....??? I would read it as Mark means there would be no distortion from the radio shack amplifier that would be noticable, or compared to other amps in the *they all sound the same comparison* even be measured... Eddie Runner http://www.teamrocs.com |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
"Eddie Runner" wrote in message ... Maybe your taking Marks words to literally....??? That would be pretty stupid of me, to think that "literally" means "literally", huh? |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
That would be pretty stupid of me, to think that "literally" means
"literally", huh? To think that a single sentence overrides an entire thread's worth of posts, including one that specifically points out my liberal usage of terms (such as "perfect") to describe just how insignificant these levels of distortion are, is pretty stupid of you. It's no secret that you're resorting to arguing semantics to avoid the avalanche of replies that you're getting for your outlandish assertions. |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
if thats the KEY to this whole arguement between you and Mark
why not listen to his other words, you will plainly see what he means.... If he meant literelly no distortion to the ear he would be right If he meant literally no distortion compared to the other amp he would be right If he meant literally no distortion at all ever, he would be wrong, if he said that he has said plenty that proves he doesnt believe it... Is this your only facts in this arguement?? (best facts I have seen you use) Eddie Runner Installin since 1974 jeffc wrote: "Eddie Runner" wrote in message ... Maybe your taking Marks words to literally....??? That would be pretty stupid of me, to think that "literally" means "literally", huh? |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
MZ wrote:
There aren't unknown parameters to measure. How would you know this for sure? At one time, a hifi amp was measured for frequency response, noise and THD at maximum level. It was later discovered that low level performance had a BIG impact to the subjective quality and the source of the problem was found (crossover distorsion in class B SS designs. Then, IM distorsion and TIM distortion were discovered and measured. More recently, damping factor and low impedance load performance began to have importance in a quality product... Moral of the story : maybe some yet unknown or still unmeasurable parameter impacts the subjective quality. I appreciate your knowledge and experience in sensory neuroscience, but who knows... Speakers operate on voltage and current, and nothing else. Yes, but they are complex, reactive loads that varies dynamically. Driver's cone are moving, remember? Pure, sine waves into resistive load have minimal relation to real music into actual loudspeakers. My 0.02 -- Eric (Dero) Desrochers http://homepage.mac.com/dero72 Hiroshima 45, Tchernobyl 86, Windows 95 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Digital Radio Sound Quality in Comparison | High End Audio | |||
here are some preamp comparison results | Pro Audio | |||
DSD vs PCM Explanation & Comparison | Pro Audio | |||
USB Mic Pre Comparison | Pro Audio | |||
EQ Comparison: A&H vs Crest | Pro Audio |