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.

"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.

"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?

"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?

"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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

"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?

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.

"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?

"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?

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.

"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

thank you Tom! (really!!)

Nousaine wrote:

Eddie Runner wrote:
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!

I'mnot intending to be argumentative here. I agree with Zarella and Eddie on
their ebasic points. But I'd like to point out that while 1 dB SPL is generally
a good rule of thumb considered the threshold of perception or audibility for a
level difference Toole has shown this depends on frequency and for resonance
the Q of the difference.

It is generally accpeted that with test tone and any other signal that matching
response and level to 0.2 dB (+/- 0.1 dB) over the 20Hz to 20 kHz range is
necessary to ensure perception is not-level related. But for general practice
I've generally found that differences of 2-dB or less are generally useful. For
example level differences and channel imbalance generally do not become an
audibility issue until the difference approaches 2 dB.

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.

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.

"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

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

"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."

"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.

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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

"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.

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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

"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?

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.

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?

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