Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... LOL by what, other flawed equipment? The subtraction of signals, for instance, takes the test equipment out of the picture entirely. Uh, no, that's just what you'd like my position to be so you can jump on the bandwagon and toe the party line. People who have built amplifiers and understand their architecture say one thing. People who have not built amplifiers and don't understand their architecture say another thing. I wonder why that is? Because people who listen to the music are the ones who really matter? |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
jeffc wrote:
The problem is not the information. The problem is the measurement of the information. Not rellavent!! Since I can measure sounds so minute no one can hear them and since no one has yet proved they can hear things I cant measure, (many folks IMAGINE they can), then your point is irrelevent to these arguements... Eddie Runner http://www.installer.com/tech/ |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Les wrote:
And where do you get this from? Test equipment that can measure the change in signal is way beyond what our ears can detect. How is it not? Les, thats a really good point... Let me add, it is widely accepted that about 1dB is the smallest increment in sound changes that a human can hear with a test tone, certainly NOT MUSIC!! And most folks might also agree that to hear THD it needs to get up about TEN PERCENT (more or less depending on frequency) and again way more than this with most music.... 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....??? Eddie Runner Installer Mailing List http://www.installer.com/tech/iml.html |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
has anyone heard the sound of a UFO?
Or measured the sound qualities of the Holly Grail? Les wrote: Mark, You obviously know way too much about how the human ear and testing devices actually work to be productive in this discussion. Here you are providing scientific evidence and displaying a strong understanding of the subject matter. Noone wants that, we want conspiracy theories about test equipment and talk about magical and mysterious unknowns that we can all perceive in different ways. That way noone can ever be wrong and everyone can be right! Get it together. (Note for the readers who are unable to detect sarcasm. The above paragraph is dripping with it, there is so much of it that right now it should be leaking out your computer's open ports. I now return you to your regularly scheduled flame-war.) Les |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Clark is a ****head!
Brett wrote: Heres a link to the Richard Clark challenge http://www.talkaudio.co.uk/vbb/showt...threadid=18815 |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
No, Mark...
People that listen to stereo salesmen or read stereo magazines say one thing. People that work on amps say another... HA HA HA MZ wrote: LOL by what, other flawed equipment? The subtraction of signals, for instance, takes the test equipment out of the picture entirely. Uh, no, that's just what you'd like my position to be so you can jump on the bandwagon and toe the party line. People who have built amplifiers and understand their architecture say one thing. People who have not built amplifiers and don't understand their architecture say another thing. I wonder why that is? |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Every word you say is based on mysterious unknowns!
jeffc wrote: The only one talking about "mysterious unknowns" is you. I certainly haven't mentioned any. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Now Mark,
He has us here!! Since folks actually listening to the music are what really matters. In this case, we DO have to take into account the *marketing bull***** and *brand name predjudic*e and all the *magic voodoo* that makes folks happy in the end.. As someone that works in the audiuo industry, I have always been one to complement one on the sound of thier system, the simple complement goes a long way in thier happieness!! The stereo guy said it sounds good, so it must really sound good...!! We all know, 99 percent of sound is how someone percieves the sound in thier minds which includes all the voodoo...!! Not how something really sounds.... ha ha ha he is still full of **** about everything else though... ha ha ha jeffc wrote: Because people who listen to the music are the ones who really matter? |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
In short, microphones do a much better job at capturing the original
signal than does the human auditory system. Not only because it uses more precise materials and mechanisms, but also because it's designed for perfect reproduction - the auditory system is not. Completely beside the point. Whether the microphone hears the sound or the ear does isn't the point. The point is that microphones aren't perfect, period. "Designed for perfect reproduction" is completely irrelevant. It's doesn't work perfectly. No, the POINT is that microphones are better than your ears. Period. I've tried to explain this to you in every way I can, going so far as to explain how microphones and the auditory system both work and what their limitations are. Yet you still cling to the notion that the human auditory system is more precise. This, coming from someone who's never built or played around with microphones, and someone who isn't active in the human sensory system research community. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
You never answered the question. I have no distrust in my ears, but I do
know ears limitations. And I fail to see how it proves your original point. My original point - if you had been in the discussion all along rather than jumping in with your tired old preconceptions about audio "mysteries" and "magic" - was that differences in amplifiers can be measured. MZ said they can not because there aren't any. Now he's backpedaling. I didn't say that. Quit setting up strawmen. I've said all along that they CAN be measured. You're the one that insists that test equipment is not precise enough to make these measurements and I've spent more time than I should trying to convince you that the manufacturers of these devices aren't lying when they provide microvolt margins of error. To prove that I have indeed stated that the differences are measurable with test equipment, I've repeatedly used, as an example, the difference of 0.0001% THD. Do you want me to dig up the quote? ALL amplifiers - ALL - exhibit distortion. The only question is whether test equipment is precise and accurate enough to measure this distortion. That's unlikely in all cases, since perfect test equipment does not exist any more than perfect amplifiers exist. But they're both more perfect than the auditory system, a system which you've demonstrated you know absolutely nothing about. No, that is not necessarily a logical conclusion. People design amps the way they design them. Each one sounds different at some level of accuracy of measurement. Whether or not in each particular case it's below the threshold of human hearing is the only question. I gave one example where it was not below the threshold of my hearing (I happen to have better hearing than most people, which explains why I sometimes hear differences in speakers etc that some others can't notice.) Presumably, the difference I heard can be measured by test equipment. If the test equipment cannot detect a difference that I can hear, then obviously the test equipment is flawed or not precise enough. I'm sure you thought you heard something. |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
How can he argue against this?
Maybe he has never used any test equipment....??? Of course he hasn't. He would know all this if he had. Besides, he doesn't even know what these devices are! I've had to explain this to him repeatedly. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Of course. As you pointed out earlier, simple copper wires distort the
original too. But, in the context of this conversation (which revolves around audibility), they can be considered perfect. I already gave you an example where that wasn't so. And as I've already said, your example is worthless because it didn't implement sufficient controls. Studies that DO implement controls tend to be published in peer-reviewed journals. I'll go with those papers before I'll go with the internet ramblings of someone who may or may not have performed these tests themselves. I don't expect you to take my word for it either. But if you want published references, I'll be more than happy to provide citations - or in some cases, pdfs. You CAN count the number of molecules in water. You measure the amount of water you have and you divide by the molecular weight at that temperature. Riiiiight. Real easy. To say that something is theoretically possible is different from saying that it can be done in practice. I just said it could be done in practice and I said how to do it. If we've only got a few molecules of water, we can't make this measurement. Wait, I thought you CAN do it? Not with a cup, obviously. You need a different device. What difference does the number of molecules make? If you can't count 3 molecules, then your test equipment isn't good enough. Right. The method I described is not good enough to get down to 3-molecule precision. Again, you're having trouble understanding that TEST EQUIPMENT IS MORE PRECISE THAN THE AUDITORY SYSTEM. Sorry, maybe some is, No, all of it is. As I've repeatedly explained to you, the auditory system isn't interested in being accurate. Even the crudest test equipment is. but it clearly doesn't explain all the errors that have been published in stereo review magazines that "prove" 2 different components sound the same, when any fool can tell they don't. Again, you don't understand the difference between precision and accuracy. They don't "prove" anything. They offer subjective comparisons without implementing the proper controls. You don't understand the difference between science and voodoo. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Exactly, that's my point. It's the exact same argument you guys used
earlier. I sat down and listened to a clear difference between 2 Adcom amplifiers and 2 CD players. But according to you guys, the equipment was flawed, or I was cheating. This is obviously going nowhere if you're going to claim that I can't trust my own ears. This is just as reliable as you trusting your own eyes when you read the test equipment. If you say the components measure the same, I can just claim you didn't read it right. Besides, how do you know the components I listened to measured the same? Did you measure them? This is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. You're really reaching now, claiming that all testers can't read numbers off a computer screen. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
In this case, we DO have to take into account the *marketing bull*****
and *brand name predjudic*e and all the *magic voodoo* that makes folks happy in the end.. I'm not talking about marketing. In fact, the marketeers would be more likely to agree with him. It sells more amps. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... In this case, we DO have to take into account the *marketing bull***** and *brand name predjudic*e and all the *magic voodoo* that makes folks happy in the end.. 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? You guys are just looking for some "audiophile" patsy so you can drag out your tired old lines. Sorry I can't humor you in that department. But hey, hear what you want and ignore the rest - just like the guys you claim to disagree with. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Have you ever tested cables?
Have you ever tested amps? I have!! Eddie Runner http://www.twfer,com jeffc wrote: 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? You guys are just looking for some "audiophile" patsy so you can drag out your tired old lines. Sorry I can't humor you in that department. But hey, hear what you want and ignore the rest - just like the guys you claim to disagree with. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
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. They say their amps sound the best because of the _______ patented technology and that their cables sound the best because they're _____% oxygen-free with super _______-plated connectors and ______ construction. You guys are just looking for some "audiophile" patsy so you can drag out your tired old lines. I'm not LOOKING for anyone. You were the one who originally stepped into this thread to disagree with me. Sorry I can't humor you in that department. This you're right about. You're not nearly as knowledgable as most subjectivists. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... My original point - if you had been in the discussion all along rather than jumping in with your tired old preconceptions about audio "mysteries" and "magic" - was that differences in amplifiers can be measured. MZ said they can not because there aren't any. Now he's backpedaling. I didn't say that. Quit setting up strawmen. I've said all along that they CAN be measured. You're the one that insists that test equipment is not precise enough to make these measurements and I've spent more time than I should trying to convince you that the manufacturers of these devices aren't lying when they provide microvolt margins of error. To prove that I have indeed stated that the differences are measurable with test equipment, I've repeatedly used, as an example, the difference of 0.0001% THD. Do you want me to dig up the quote? I'd rather dig up this quote. This doesn't make sense because how could an amp with a superior circuit design and premium parts sound the same as a RadioShack special. "Because the RadioShack special will reproduce the sound with literally no distortion." Now you're saying it reproduces the sound with measurable distortion. No, that is not necessarily a logical conclusion. People design amps the way they design them. Each one sounds different at some level of accuracy of measurement. Whether or not in each particular case it's below the threshold of human hearing is the only question. I gave one example where it was not below the threshold of my hearing (I happen to have better hearing than most people, which explains why I sometimes hear differences in speakers etc that some others can't notice.) Presumably, the difference I heard can be measured by test equipment. If the test equipment cannot detect a difference that I can hear, then obviously the test equipment is flawed or not precise enough. I'm sure you thought you heard something. Right. And I'm sure you thought you saw something when you looked at your test equipment. But it was probably all in your head. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... Of course. As you pointed out earlier, simple copper wires distort the original too. But, in the context of this conversation (which revolves around audibility), they can be considered perfect. I already gave you an example where that wasn't so. And as I've already said, your example is worthless because it didn't implement sufficient controls. 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. What difference does the number of molecules make? If you can't count 3 molecules, then your test equipment isn't good enough. Right. The method I described is not good enough to get down to 3-molecule precision. And what device and method will you use to count the number of molecules in a glass of water? Again, you're having trouble understanding that TEST EQUIPMENT IS MORE PRECISE THAN THE AUDITORY SYSTEM. Sorry, maybe some is, No, all of it is. Well, that's obviously horse hockey. As I've repeatedly explained to you, the auditory system isn't interested in being accurate. Even the crudest test equipment is. You don't understand the problem at all, do you? The auditory system is the ONLY system that matters. It is, by definition, 100% accurate. Once again, you don't understand the difference between accuracy and precision. What we hear live is the only reference we have vs. what we hear coming through our speakers. Any measurement is at BEST only theoretically as good, and in practice not as good. To say that measuring equipment is more precise than the human ear is a complete red herring. |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
I'd rather dig up this quote.
This doesn't make sense because how could an amp with a superior circuit design and premium parts sound the same as a RadioShack special. "Because the RadioShack special will reproduce the sound with literally no distortion." Now you're saying it reproduces the sound with measurable distortion. No, I've said it all along. Here's another quote of mine: "Note that by "perfect" I mean that the level of distortion is well below (at least one order of magnitude) what's considered audible." |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... Exactly, that's my point. It's the exact same argument you guys used earlier. I sat down and listened to a clear difference between 2 Adcom amplifiers and 2 CD players. But according to you guys, the equipment was flawed, or I was cheating. This is obviously going nowhere if you're going to claim that I can't trust my own ears. This is just as reliable as you trusting your own eyes when you read the test equipment. If you say the components measure the same, I can just claim you didn't read it right. Besides, how do you know the components I listened to measured the same? Did you measure them? This is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. You're really reaching now, claiming that all testers can't read numbers off a computer screen. Did I say "all testers" somewhere? Anyway, it's no different from claiming all listeners can't hear sounds coming from a speaker. You see what you see, and it's reliable. Then again, I could drag out your silly "magic show" analogy. If you can't see reliably what's going on in a magic show, then how can you see reliably what's going on with your test equipment? You're perfectly willing to point this out with respect to listeners, but not with respect to watchers. Talk about stretching.... |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... In short, microphones do a much better job at capturing the original signal than does the human auditory system. Not only because it uses more precise materials and mechanisms, but also because it's designed for perfect reproduction - the auditory system is not. Completely beside the point. Whether the microphone hears the sound or the ear does isn't the point. The point is that microphones aren't perfect, period. "Designed for perfect reproduction" is completely irrelevant. It's doesn't work perfectly. No, the POINT is that microphones are better than your ears. Period. I've tried to explain this to you in every way I can, going so far as to explain how microphones and the auditory system both work and what their limitations are. Yet you still cling to the notion that the human auditory system is more precise. No, you cling to mistaken notion that precion has anything to do with this problem. I suggest you read up on the actual problem, rather than spouting off about the precision of measuring equipment. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
"Eddie Runner" wrote in message ... jeffc wrote: The problem is not the information. The problem is the measurement of the information. Not rellavent!! Since I can measure sounds so minute no one can hear them and since no one has yet proved they can hear things I cant measure, (many folks IMAGINE they can), then your point is irrelevent to these arguements... 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. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
And as I've already said, your example is worthless because it didn't
implement sufficient controls. 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? There's no such thing. Clearly, as someone who has NEVER conducted a scientific study, you have no idea about such matters, do you? 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. Since your argument has completely fallen on its face, you resort to such silliness. Now you're claiming that each of the authors of the hundreds of papers that have systematically examined the very effects we're discussing did not know how to read? Again, you're having trouble understanding that TEST EQUIPMENT IS MORE PRECISE THAN THE AUDITORY SYSTEM. Sorry, maybe some is, No, all of it is. Well, that's obviously horse hockey. Give me an example then. What device has been used to make distortion measurements isn't as precise as the human auditory system? I ask for only one example. As I've repeatedly explained to you, the auditory system isn't interested in being accurate. Even the crudest test equipment is. You don't understand the problem at all, do you? The auditory system is the ONLY system that matters. It is, by definition, 100% accurate. No, it is NOT 100% accurate. IT CANNOT DETECT ALL THE THINGS THAT TEST EQUIPMENT CAN DETECT, BUT TEST EQUIPMENT CAN DETECT ALL THE THINGS THE AUDITORY SYSTEM CAN DETECT. That's the bottom line that you refuse to accept. The ear cannot detect differences in the signal that the test equipment cannot detect. This is not an opinion. It is a proven fact. Once again, you don't understand the difference between accuracy and precision. What we hear live is the only reference we have vs. what we hear coming through our speakers. Any measurement is at BEST only theoretically as good, and in practice not as good. To say that measuring equipment is more precise than the human ear is a complete red herring. It's not a red herring. If the ear is detecting it, so too will the test equipment. If the test equipment is not detecting it, then it is physically impossible for the ear to detect it. You claim otherwise, but you admittedly know very little about the human auditory system and the test equipment that we've been discussing. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
This is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. You're really
reaching now, claiming that all testers can't read numbers off a computer screen. Did I say "all testers" somewhere? It was implied by your assertion that the measurements that are obtained by all testers are incorrect. Even if you claim that the measurements that are obtained by some testers are incorrect, then you've got the ones that you acknowledge are correct refuting your points. So yes, you are implying all testers. Anyway, it's no different from claiming all listeners can't hear sounds coming from a speaker. I never claimed that listeners don't think they hear sounds coming from the speaker. I never said you lied about your "tests". In fact, I said that I'm sure you think you heard a difference. But guess what? Your test equipment (ears) is very inaccurate. I've tried to demonstrate this to you by explaining to you how the human auditory system works and what bottlenecks it faces, but you haven't paid attention to it. (by the way, if you disagree with any of those comments, I can back each and every one of them by papers or texts - just say the word) You see what you see, and it's reliable. No, it's not. You've never experienced optical illusions? Does the waterfall effect really mean that the picture hanging on the wall is moving? After all, that's what your visual system is telling you. Then again, I could drag out your silly "magic show" analogy. If you can't see reliably what's going on in a magic show, then how can you see reliably what's going on with your test equipment? Because the readout on your test equipment is not an illusion or slight of hand trick. Magic shows rely on these things. Surely you're not going to suggest that david copperfield really did saw a woman in half, are you? |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
No, the POINT is that microphones are better than your ears. Period.
I've tried to explain this to you in every way I can, going so far as to explain how microphones and the auditory system both work and what their limitations are. Yet you still cling to the notion that the human auditory system is more precise. No, you cling to mistaken notion that precion has anything to do with this problem. I suggest you read up on the actual problem, rather than spouting off about the precision of measuring equipment. Why are you changing your tune? You've attempted to refute my point that the measured distortion is low by claiming that the test equipment is less accurate than the auditory system. I've therefore addressed that silly assertion of yours and demonstrated that it's untrue. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... are. Yet you still cling to the notion that the human auditory system is more precise. No, you cling to mistaken notion that precion has anything to do with this problem. I suggest you read up on the actual problem, rather than spouting off about the precision of measuring equipment. Why are you changing your tune? You've attempted to refute my point that the measured distortion is low by claiming that the test equipment is less accurate than the auditory system. I've therefore addressed that silly assertion of yours and demonstrated that it's untrue. No, you said it's more PRECISE. Why are you blathering on and on when you can't tell the difference between accuracy and precision? Why are you ignoring me every single time I tell you this? I can tell you're not stupid. But you're stubborn, and you're dead set on "proving" me wrong, even though you can't find anything to prove to me that I don't already know. You're on a witch hunt, hoping to find some audiophile with "mystical assertions." I'm sorry I can't be that person for you, but maybe they have pay phone services where you can indulge your fantasies. In the mean time, if human ears can't tell the difference between live sound and stereo reproduced sound, then all the testing equipment and precision in the world is irrelevant. If human ears can (and almost all the time they can), then again testing equipment is irrelevant. Now if these differences are due to amplification (which they often are, at least in part), it's because of distortion of some sort. There are actually many links in the reproduction process, and distortion is added at every single step. (This distortion can be cumulative. For example, if we had some reproduction system where every step in the process reduced the amplitude by .1 dB, then after 10 or so iterations of this we'd have a noticeable (by the human ear) difference in amplitude.) 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. So far I hope I haven't said anything you'd disagree with, even though you're chomping at the bit to do so. Now, why exactly is it so important for you to believe that a person can not hear any difference between 2 amps? What cornerstone of science will crumble to the ground for you if this is so? You agree (now) that all amplifiers exhibit distortion. What exactly is so hard to swallow when it can be heard? It happens, and it's measurable (at least in theory) by machines. If I can hear a difference between 2 amplifiers and it isn't being measured, then there's a problem with the measurement, not with me. If the measuring equipment is good enough, then the same problem will show up. What is so hard to swallow about that? |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... I'd rather dig up this quote. This doesn't make sense because how could an amp with a superior circuit design and premium parts sound the same as a RadioShack special. "Because the RadioShack special will reproduce the sound with literally no distortion." Now you're saying it reproduces the sound with measurable distortion. No, I've said it all along. Here's another quote of mine: "Note that by "perfect" I mean that the level of distortion is well below (at least one order of magnitude) what's considered audible." 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. |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... 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? What's the difference between accuracy and precision? |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... This is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. You're really reaching now, claiming that all testers can't read numbers off a computer screen. Did I say "all testers" somewhere? It was implied by your assertion that the measurements that are obtained by all testers are incorrect. No, you inferred it. Big difference. Your mistake. Even if you claim that the measurements that are obtained by some testers are incorrect, then you've got the ones that you acknowledge are correct refuting your points. So yes, you are implying all testers. No, I'm not. Anyway, it's no different from claiming all listeners can't hear sounds coming from a speaker. I never claimed that listeners don't think they hear sounds coming from the speaker. I never said you lied about your "tests". In fact, I said that 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. They are the standard by which everything goes back to. This is a fundamental concept. What is so hard to grasp here? I did not "think" I heard a difference. I did hear a difference. Just like you're reading these words. You see what you see, and it's reliable. No, it's not. You've never experienced optical illusions? So what you're saying is, you can't verify any of the readings you've ever seen on your test equipment? I guess we'll have to toss out all your well-documented data then. Because the readout on your test equipment is not an illusion or slight of hand trick. Oh I see. So it *IS* reliable then? Is it or isn't it? I say what you see is reliable. 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? Is someone trying to trick me by making me think I'm listening to music when I'm really not? You've lost all sense of logic at this point. Nice though. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message news 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. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Why are you changing your tune? You've attempted to refute my point
that the measured distortion is low by claiming that the test equipment is less accurate than the auditory system. I've therefore addressed that silly assertion of yours and demonstrated that it's untrue. No, you said it's more PRECISE. Why are you blathering on and on when you can't tell the difference between accuracy and precision? 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 (both of which, by the way, are higher in the auditory system than on computer screens). Why are you ignoring me every single time I tell you this? I can tell you're not stupid. But you're stubborn, and you're dead set on "proving" me wrong, even though you can't find anything to prove to me that I don't already know. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. In the mean time, if human ears can't tell the difference between live sound and stereo reproduced sound, Who said that? then all the testing equipment and precision in the world is irrelevant. If human ears can (and almost all the time they can), then again testing equipment is irrelevant. Now if these differences are due to amplification (which they often are, at least in part), it's because of distortion of some sort. There are actually many links in the reproduction process, and distortion is added at every single step. (This distortion can be cumulative. For example, if we had some reproduction system where every step in the process reduced the amplitude by .1 dB, then after 10 or so iterations of this we'd have a noticeable (by the human ear) difference in amplitude.) Finally we agree on something. 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. Agreed. So far I hope I haven't said anything you'd disagree with, even though you're chomping at the bit to do so. Now, why exactly is it so important for you to believe that a person can not hear any difference between 2 amps? What cornerstone of science will crumble to the ground for you if this is so? What are you talking about? You agree (now) that all amplifiers exhibit distortion. I always have. I've already dug up one quote to verify this. Must I google back to the more distant past to try to find even more evidence? A single quote (whose sole purpose was to clarify my terms) should suffice, no? What exactly is so hard to swallow when it can be heard? It happens, and it's measurable (at least in theory) by machines. If I can hear a difference between 2 amplifiers and it isn't being measured, then there's a problem with the measurement, not with me. You haven't yet performed this test, even though you think that you have (see #5 above). And, as I've said at the beginning of the discussion, if you can demonstrate that you can hear the difference, then you should publish your results. They would indeed be groundbreaking. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
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. You've read several of my posts now, some of them distinctly saying that amplifiers introduce distortion, and one of them clearly explaining that I've chosen to use terms such as "perfect" to describe the reproduction because the level of distortion is well below audibility. In other words, I acknowledged in that very post that amplifiers produce distortion, did I not? |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
"MZ" wrote in message ... Why are you changing your tune? You've attempted to refute my point that the measured distortion is low by claiming that the test equipment is less accurate than the auditory system. I've therefore addressed that silly assertion of yours and demonstrated that it's untrue. No, you said it's more PRECISE. Why are you blathering on and on when you can't tell the difference between accuracy and precision? 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. Why are you ignoring me every single time I tell you this? I can tell you're not stupid. But you're stubborn, and you're dead set on "proving" me wrong, even though you can't find anything to prove to me that I don't already know. 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. 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". 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. 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. 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? Why would you make any such assumptions? I hope you don't make those sorts of assumptions when doing actual important work. So far I hope I haven't said anything you'd disagree with, even though you're chomping at the bit to do so. Now, why exactly is it so important for you to believe that a person can not hear any difference between 2 amps? What cornerstone of science will crumble to the ground for you if this is so? What are you talking about? I think my question was pretty clear. You agree (now) that all amplifiers exhibit distortion. I always have. Your quote early in this thread was to the contrary. So we're past it - you goofed, started backpedaling, now claim you've said it all along. Fine. I believe you actually mean it. Must I google back to the more distant past to try to find even more evidence? A single quote (whose sole purpose was to clarify my terms) should suffice, no? No, not when it contradicted the one I gave. Let's move on, shall we? What exactly is so hard to swallow when it can be heard? It happens, and it's measurable (at least in theory) by machines. If I can hear a difference between 2 amplifiers and it isn't being measured, then there's a problem with the measurement, not with me. 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? |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
It was implied by your assertion that the measurements that are obtained
by all testers are incorrect. No, you inferred it. Big difference. Your mistake. It's a necessary requirement for your argument to hold water. I never claimed that listeners don't think they hear sounds coming from the speaker. I never said you lied about your "tests". In fact, I said that 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. You see what you see, and it's reliable. No, it's not. You've never experienced optical illusions? So what you're saying is, you can't verify any of the readings you've ever seen on your test equipment? 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. Because the readout on your test equipment is not an illusion or slight of hand trick. Oh I see. So it *IS* reliable then? Is it or isn't it? I say what you see is reliable. 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. 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? |
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 |