[ScottW]

Anyone of you AES readers seen this paper?

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12465

I was just wondering if this work indicates the presence of
nonlinear distortion can result in positive perception from
most listeners?

ScottW

[[email protected]]

On Aug 12, 3:55?pm, "ScottW" wrote:
Anyone of you AES readers seen this paper?

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12465

I was just wondering if this work indicates the presence of
nonlinear distortion can result in positive perception from
most listeners?

ScottW

GedLee? Like Geddy Lee?

Boon

[ScottW]

On Aug 12, 4:26 pm, wrote:
On Aug 12, 3:55?pm, "ScottW" wrote:

Anyone of you AES readers seen this paper?

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12465

I was just wondering if this work indicates the presence of
nonlinear distortion can result in positive perception from
most listeners?

ScottW

GedLee? Like Geddy Lee?

Boon

Earl Geddes and Lidia Lee... science may rescue you
SET lovers yet .

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message

Anyone of you AES readers seen this paper?

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12465

I was just wondering if this work indicates the presence
of nonlinear distortion can result in positive perception
from most listeners?

The work indicates that the presence of enough nonlinear distortion of
certain kinds is audible.

[ScottW]

On Aug 12, 4:59 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message



Anyone of you AES readers seen this paper?

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12465

I was just wondering if this work indicates the presence
of nonlinear distortion can result in positive perception
from most listeners?

The work indicates that the presence of enough nonlinear distortion of
certain kinds is audible.

"Psychoacoustical data were measured, correlation and regression
analysis were applied to examine the relationship and predictive value
of this new metric to the subjective assessment of sound quality of
nonlinear distortion. Furthermore, conventional metrics such as total
harmonic distortion (THD) and intermodulation distortion (IMD) were
also compared. "

I'm interested in the subjective assessment of sound quality.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com
On Aug 12, 4:59 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message



Anyone of you AES readers seen this paper?

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12465

I was just wondering if this work indicates the presence
of nonlinear distortion can result in positive
perception from most listeners?

The work indicates that the presence of enough nonlinear
distortion of certain kinds is audible.

"Psychoacoustical data were measured, correlation and
regression analysis were applied to examine the
relationship and predictive value of this new metric to
the subjective assessment of sound quality of nonlinear
distortion. Furthermore, conventional metrics such as
total harmonic distortion (THD) and intermodulation
distortion (IMD) were also compared. "

I'm interested in the subjective assessment of sound
quality.

Why not obtain the paper?

Oh, it costs a few bucks from the AES.

You might find more free information at the Gedlee web site:

http://www.gedlee.com/

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

You might find more free information at the Gedlee web
site: http://www.gedlee.com/

A bit and this was quite interesting.

http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/THD_.pdf

However this was a bit disappointing
0-imperceptable, 1-just perceptible, 2-perceptible but
not annoying, 3-annoying, 4 very annoying, 5-intolerable.

I don't think this scale addresses the subjective
perception of sound quality, apparently assuming that less
is better.

Not really.

The key is understanding what the scale is talking about.

The scale is trying to relate two things - nonlinear distortion, and
listener satisfaction.

A rating of 0-imperceptable would be assigned to subjectively perfect and
satisfying reproduction. IOW the reproduced sound matches the origional
sound and the reproduced sound is as satsifying as the origional sound. What
could be wrong with this?

A rating of 5-intolerable would be assigned to subjectively completely
mangled and entirely unsatisfying reproduction. IOW the reproduced sound no
way matches the origional sound and the reproduced sound is not the least
bit satisfying. What could be right about this?


http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Comm...n%20howard.pdf

ends with,
"The bottom line here is that we know so little about how
humans perceive the sound quality
of an audio system, and in particular the loudspeaker,
that one should question almost everything
that we think we know about measuring it. From what we
have found most of what is being done
in this regard is naive. Things like distortion
measurements that don’t consider masking, or axial
frequency response that does not consider the reverberant
field or arrival time issues of group
delay. Maybe someday in the future we will be able to
quantify perceived sound quality and
move audio away from a marketing dominated situation to a
data driven one."

In fact we can quantify perceived quality, but only in the grossest possible
way. We can define numbers for a set of parameters that results in
reproduction that is indistingushable from the original.

It is possible to find individual components such as amplifiers and CD
players whose performance conforms to these parameters, and in practice the
parameters are good predictors of sound quality in a pass/fail sort of way.

When it comes to other components like transducers (which is Geddes area of
expertise and concern) we can't find any components that meet the current
pass/fail criteria.

Basically, Geddes wants to find a more sophisticated way to define and
gather data for performance parameters that allows us accept products with
lower performance, providing their performance conforms to the new
parameters. More specificially, instead of saying that anything whose
imperfections are less than say +/- 0.1 dB and 0.01% nonlinear distortion
provides subjectively ideal performance, we find ways to measure and analyze
performance so that equipment with far poorer performance that that with
traditional measures, still provides subjectively ideal performance.

This would seem to indicate that parametric objectivists
don't have a sound scientific basis upon which to rest claims
of superior performance.

Congratulations Scott. You've just invented a new phrase that google finds
zero instances of on the entire web - "parametric objectivist" I can guess
at what you mean by it, but rather than doing that, why don't you define it?

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message
ups.com
On Aug 14, 5:11 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message



"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
You might find more free information at the Gedlee web
site:http://www.gedlee.com/

A bit and this was quite interesting.

http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/THD_.pdf
However this was a bit disappointing
0-imperceptable, 1-just perceptible, 2-perceptible but
not annoying, 3-annoying, 4 very annoying,
5-intolerable.
I don't think this scale addresses the subjective
perception of sound quality, apparently assuming that
less
is better.

Not really.

The key is understanding what the scale is talking about.

The scale is trying to relate two things - nonlinear
distortion, and listener satisfaction.

A rating of 0-imperceptable would be assigned to
subjectively perfect and satisfying reproduction. IOW
the reproduced sound matches the origional sound and the
reproduced sound is as satsifying as the origional
sound. What could be wrong with this?

The assumption that the complete absence of non-linear
distortion contributes of all listeners satisfaction.

Wrong. The assumption is that less audible distortion is more pleasing and
contributes to more lifelike reproduction than more audible distortion.

It comes down to whether you want your audio system to be a reproducer or a
EFX machine.


Coupling imperceptible distortion with satisfying
reproduction should not be a given if one is truly
attempting to correlate listener
satisfaction with distortion.

That's only a hypothesis, one that flys in the face of about 100 years of
experience with reproducing music.

A rating of 5-intolerable would be assigned to
subjectively completely mangled and entirely
unsatisfying reproduction. IOW the reproduced sound no
way matches the origional sound and the reproduced
sound is not the least bit satisfying. What could be
right about this?

http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Comm...n%20howard.pdf
ends with,

"The bottom line here is that we know so little about
how humans perceive the sound quality
of an audio system, and in particular the loudspeaker,
that one should question almost everything
that we think we know about measuring it. From what we
have found most of what is being done
in this regard is naive. Things like distortion
measurements that don't consider masking, or axial
frequency response that does not consider the
reverberant field or arrival time issues of group
delay. Maybe someday in the future we will be able to
quantify perceived sound quality and
move audio away from a marketing dominated situation to
a data driven one."

In fact we can quantify perceived quality, but only in
the grossest possible way. We can define numbers for a
set of parameters that results in reproduction that is
indistingushable from the original.

I've never seen such a list. Please produce it or a link
to it.

One name for such a list is EBU recommendation BS 1116. Google can be your
friend.

I would be most interested in finding the complete
definition of an assuered perfect performance (indistinguishable from
live) system.

I already gave one - a system with all noise and distortion down 100 dB or
more.

It is possible to find individual components such as
amplifiers and CD players whose performance conforms to
these parameters, and in practice the parameters are
good predictors of sound quality in a pass/fail sort of
way.

Assuming the aforementioned parameter list is all
inclusive of every factor impacting subjective audio
quality perception.

It will pass a straight wire bypass test.

When it comes to other components like transducers
(which is Geddes area of expertise and concern) we can't
find any components that meet the current pass/fail
criteria.

Which is interesting as it appears drivers are appearing
on the market
with distortion numbers below that which is considered
inaudible in amplifiers.

Examples, please.

Basically, Geddes wants to find a more sophisticated way
to define and gather data for performance parameters
that allows us accept products with lower performance,
providing their performance conforms to the new
parameters. More specificially, instead of saying that
anything whose imperfections are less than say +/- 0.1
dB and 0.01% nonlinear distortion provides subjectively
ideal performance, we find ways to measure and analyze
performance so that equipment with far poorer
performance that that with traditional measures, still
provides subjectively ideal performance.

This would seem to indicate that parametric objectivists
don't have a sound scientific basis upon which to rest
claims of superior performance.

Congratulations Scott. You've just invented a new phrase
that google finds zero instances of on the entire web -
"parametric objectivist" I can guess at what you mean
by it, but rather than doing that, why don't you define
it?

It is simple. People who judge unit performance based
upon accepted parametric measures of performance even if
those measures may not be complete enough to assure subjective perceived
quality. '

Looks like a straw man.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
ups.com
On Aug 14, 5:11 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message



"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
You might find more free information at the Gedlee web
site:http://www.gedlee.com/

A bit and this was quite interesting.

http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/THD_.pdf
However this was a bit disappointing
0-imperceptable, 1-just perceptible, 2-perceptible but
not annoying, 3-annoying, 4 very annoying,
5-intolerable.
I don't think this scale addresses the subjective
perception of sound quality, apparently assuming that
less
is better.

Not really.

The key is understanding what the scale is talking about.

The scale is trying to relate two things - nonlinear
distortion, and listener satisfaction.

A rating of 0-imperceptable would be assigned to
subjectively perfect and satisfying reproduction. IOW
the reproduced sound matches the origional sound and the
reproduced sound is as satsifying as the origional
sound. What could be wrong with this?

The assumption that the complete absence of non-linear
distortion contributes of all listeners satisfaction.

Wrong. The assumption is that less audible distortion is more pleasing
and contributes to more lifelike reproduction than more audible
distortion.

Taken to the ultimate we get exactly what I said.

That's called an excluded middle argument, Scott.

And we also know that many listeners prefer a bit
of distortion.

What we know is that with suitable hype and deception such as the LP
preference weirdness, listeners can be coaxed into ignoring and even
preferring certain amounts and kinds of audible distortion, despite their
well-known deliterious effects on realism.

You seem to believe the Keith Howard has the last
word on the subject.

http://stereophile.com/reference/406howard/index.html

Mr. Howard's little piece of garbage is intellectually repugnant. More
excluded middle thinking.

It comes down to whether you want your audio system to be a reproducer or
a
EFX machine.

Like I said once before...I've heard a small drum kit in my
room. I didn't like it.

Proves nothing. First off not all drums sound the same. Maybe you just
didn't like those drums. Secondly, acoustic instruments differ from a
well-designed audio system in that they have very limited or no facilities
for being adapted to a particular room.

So I think in all honesty, we're all doomed to EFX machines
for maximum enjoyment.

Only those who want to be deceived by hype and bad science.

Coupling imperceptible distortion with satisfying
reproduction should not be a given if one is truly
attempting to correlate listener
satisfaction with distortion.

That's only a hypothesis, one that flys in the face of about 100 years of
experience with reproducing music.

It isn't my hypothesis...its Hiraga's.

Who made Hiraga into a god?

A rating of 5-intolerable would be assigned to
subjectively completely mangled and entirely
unsatisfying reproduction. IOW the reproduced sound no
way matches the origional sound and the reproduced
sound is not the least bit satisfying. What could be
right about this?

http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Comm...n%20howard.pdf
ends with,

"The bottom line here is that we know so little about
how humans perceive the sound quality
of an audio system, and in particular the loudspeaker,
that one should question almost everything
that we think we know about measuring it. From what we
have found most of what is being done
in this regard is naive. Things like distortion
measurements that don't consider masking, or axial
frequency response that does not consider the
reverberant field or arrival time issues of group
delay. Maybe someday in the future we will be able to
quantify perceived sound quality and
move audio away from a marketing dominated situation to
a data driven one."

In fact we can quantify perceived quality, but only in
the grossest possible way. We can define numbers for a
set of parameters that results in reproduction that is
indistingushable from the original.

I've never seen such a list. Please produce it or a link
to it.

One name for such a list is EBU recommendation BS 1116. Google can be
your friend.

I would be most interested in finding the complete
definition of an assuered perfect performance (indistinguishable from
live) system.

I already gave one - a system with all noise and distortion down 100 dB
or more.

It is possible to find individual components such as
amplifiers and CD players whose performance conforms to
these parameters, and in practice the parameters are
good predictors of sound quality in a pass/fail sort of
way.

Assuming the aforementioned parameter list is all
inclusive of every factor impacting subjective audio
quality perception.

It will pass a straight wire bypass test.

You mean a live vs recorded comparision?

Not necessarily, that's something else entirely. A live versus recorded
comparison includes a complete recording chain and a complete reproduction
chain. FYI Scott, that's more than just a CD player and an amplifier.

The technology does not yet exist to test
your claim..does it?

The straight wire bypass test seems to suffice.

When it comes to other components like transducers
(which is Geddes area of expertise and concern) we can't
find any components that meet the current pass/fail
criteria.

Which is interesting as it appears drivers are appearing
on the market
with distortion numbers below that which is considered
inaudible in amplifiers.

Examples, please.

I was trying find Linkwitz characterization studies for
alternative drivers where I (IIRC) he had selected
some less than 1% THD drivers. But I don't see
the tests on his site now..

1 % THD is 10-20 times the threshold of audibility for certain kinds of
amplifier distortion.

Basically, Geddes wants to find a more sophisticated way
to define and gather data for performance parameters
that allows us accept products with lower performance,
providing their performance conforms to the new
parameters. More specificially, instead of saying that
anything whose imperfections are less than say +/- 0.1
dB and 0.01% nonlinear distortion provides subjectively
ideal performance, we find ways to measure and analyze
performance so that equipment with far poorer
performance that that with traditional measures, still
provides subjectively ideal performance.

This would seem to indicate that parametric objectivists
don't have a sound scientific basis upon which to rest
claims of superior performance.

Congratulations Scott. You've just invented a new phrase
that google finds zero instances of on the entire web -
"parametric objectivist" I can guess at what you mean
by it, but rather than doing that, why don't you define
it?

It is simple. People who judge unit performance based
upon accepted parametric measures of performance even if
those measures may not be complete enough to assure subjective
perceived
quality. '

Looks like a straw man.

You're seeing things.

I'm seeing a lot of pseudoscience, bad logic, and misapprehensions in your
post, Scott.

[Jenn]

In article .com,
ScottW wrote:

On Aug 15, 4:16 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message

...


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
roups.com
On Aug 14, 5:11 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message



"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
You might find more free information at the Gedlee web
site:http://www.gedlee.com/

A bit and this was quite interesting.

http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/THD_.pdf
However this was a bit disappointing
0-imperceptable, 1-just perceptible, 2-perceptible but
not annoying, 3-annoying, 4 very annoying,
5-intolerable.
I don't think this scale addresses the subjective
perception of sound quality, apparently assuming that
less
is better.

Not really.

The key is understanding what the scale is talking about.

The scale is trying to relate two things - nonlinear
distortion, and listener satisfaction.

A rating of 0-imperceptable would be assigned to
subjectively perfect and satisfying reproduction. IOW
the reproduced sound matches the origional sound and the
reproduced sound is as satsifying as the origional
sound. What could be wrong with this?

The assumption that the complete absence of non-linear
distortion contributes of all listeners satisfaction.
Wrong. The assumption is that less audible distortion is more pleasing
and contributes to more lifelike reproduction than more audible
distortion.
Taken to the ultimate we get exactly what I said.

That's called an excluded middle argument, Scott.

What you're doing is called obfuscating.
My point stands.

And we also know that many listeners prefer a bit
of distortion.

What we know is that with suitable hype and deception such as the LP
preference weirdness, listeners can be coaxed into ignoring and even
preferring certain amounts and kinds of audible distortion, despite their
well-known deliterious effects on realism.

Well-known? That assumption is not proven, not by a long shot.


You seem to believe the Keith Howard has the last
word on the subject.
http://stereophile.com/reference/406howard/index.html

Mr. Howard's little piece of garbage is intellectually repugnant. More
excluded middle thinking.

More obfuscation. You know of studies that prove your
assumptions?

It comes down to whether you want your audio system to be a reproducer or
a
EFX machine.
Like I said once before...I've heard a small drum kit in my
room. I didn't like it.

Proves nothing. First off not all drums sound the same.

Snare drums are snare drums and they are really loud
in small rooms.

It depends ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 15, 4:16 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message

...


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
roups.com
On Aug 14, 5:11 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message



"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
You might find more free information at the Gedlee web
site:http://www.gedlee.com/

A bit and this was quite interesting.

http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/THD_.pdf
However this was a bit disappointing
0-imperceptable, 1-just perceptible, 2-perceptible but
not annoying, 3-annoying, 4 very annoying,
5-intolerable.
I don't think this scale addresses the subjective
perception of sound quality, apparently assuming that
less
is better.

Not really.

The key is understanding what the scale is talking about.

The scale is trying to relate two things - nonlinear
distortion, and listener satisfaction.

A rating of 0-imperceptable would be assigned to
subjectively perfect and satisfying reproduction. IOW
the reproduced sound matches the origional sound and the
reproduced sound is as satsifying as the origional
sound. What could be wrong with this?

The assumption that the complete absence of non-linear
distortion contributes of all listeners satisfaction.
Wrong. The assumption is that less audible distortion is more pleasing
and contributes to more lifelike reproduction than more audible
distortion.
Taken to the ultimate we get exactly what I said.

That's called an excluded middle argument, Scott.

What you're doing is called obfuscating.
My point stands.

And we also know that many listeners prefer a bit
of distortion.

What we know is that with suitable hype and deception such as the LP
preference weirdness, listeners can be coaxed into ignoring and even
preferring certain amounts and kinds of audible distortion, despite their
well-known deliterious effects on realism.

Well-known? That assumption is not proven, not by a long shot.

Lestsee - about 99% of everybody has written the LP format off, and the
remaining 1% or so are true believers - no reasonable collection of facts or
logic will change their position.

You seem to believe the Keith Howard has the last
word on the subject.
http://stereophile.com/reference/406howard/index.html

Mr. Howard's little piece of garbage is intellectually repugnant. More
excluded middle thinking.

More obfuscation.

No, that's Mr. Howard's game.

You know of studies that prove your assumptions?

Yes, the advancement of the SOTA of recording over the past 30 years.

It comes down to whether you want your audio system to be a reproducer
or
a EFX machine.

Like I said once before...I've heard a small drum kit in my
room. I didn't like it.

Proves nothing. First off not all drums sound the same.

Snare drums are snare drums

Only to the undiscerning.

and they are really loud in small rooms.

I already pointed that out : "Secondly, acoustic instruments differ from a
well-designed audio system in that they have very limited or no facilities
for being adapted to a particular room."


Maybe you just
didn't like those drums. Secondly, acoustic instruments differ from a
well-designed audio system in that they have very limited or no
facilities
for being adapted to a particular room.

There is live in my room and there is live in the highly damped
studio and there is live in the great hall.

Yes, and... ?

None of the three are remotely the same and the system that
sounds like the great hall may suck on the damped studio
track.

Yes, and...?

So I think in all honesty, we're all doomed to EFX machines
for maximum enjoyment.

Only those who want to be deceived by hype and bad science.

I want to be deceived by my senses into thinking a really nice
sounding female vocalist is quietly singing about 20 feet away
from my front row center seat where the crowd is all held
in silent breathlessness from her beauty.....till you fart and
ruin it for everyone.

Speak for your own flatulence, Scott. If you are outgassing a lot, let me
recommend Prilosec OTC. Works wonders for a number of aspects of
less-than-optimal digestion.

Coupling imperceptible distortion with satisfying
reproduction should not be a given if one is truly
attempting to correlate listener
satisfaction with distortion.
That's only a hypothesis, one that flys in the face of about 100 years
of
experience with reproducing music.
It isn't my hypothesis...its Hiraga's.

Who made Hiraga into a god?

Don't show your obvious envy.

I'm not envious of Hiraga's poor command of the relevant facts and poor
logic. Being published in SP is like wearing the scarlet letter of audio.

It's just a hypothesis...and one that may be based
upon improving the shortcomings of recordings
to a more enjoyable rendition, even if it is not "real".

Its a poor hypothesis.

A rating of 5-intolerable would be assigned to
subjectively completely mangled and entirely
unsatisfying reproduction. IOW the reproduced sound no
way matches the origional sound and the reproduced
sound is not the least bit satisfying. What could be
right about this?

http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Comm...n%20howard.pdf
ends with,

"The bottom line here is that we know so little about
how humans perceive the sound quality
of an audio system, and in particular the loudspeaker,
that one should question almost everything
that we think we know about measuring it. From what we
have found most of what is being done
in this regard is naive. Things like distortion
measurements that don't consider masking, or axial
frequency response that does not consider the
reverberant field or arrival time issues of group
delay. Maybe someday in the future we will be able to
quantify perceived sound quality and
move audio away from a marketing dominated situation to
a data driven one."

In fact we can quantify perceived quality, but only in
the grossest possible way. We can define numbers for a
set of parameters that results in reproduction that is
indistingushable from the original.

I've never seen such a list. Please produce it or a link
to it.

One name for such a list is EBU recommendation BS 1116. Google can be
your friend.

I would be most interested in finding the complete
definition of an assuered perfect performance (indistinguishable from
live) system.

I already gave one - a system with all noise and distortion down 100
dB
or more.

It is possible to find individual components such as
amplifiers and CD players whose performance conforms to
these parameters, and in practice the parameters are
good predictors of sound quality in a pass/fail sort of
way.
Assuming the aforementioned parameter list is all
inclusive of every factor impacting subjective audio
quality perception.
It will pass a straight wire bypass test.
You mean a live vs recorded comparision?

Not necessarily, that's something else entirely. A live versus recorded
comparison includes a complete recording chain and a complete
reproduction
chain. FYI Scott, that's more than just a CD player and an amplifier.

Exactly. Its the whole chain that matters, not just the last links.

Let's see, that's Schopenhauer debating trade trick number two - extend your
opponent's argument beyond its natural range...

If the recording/mixing/mastering process loses something that
can never be retrieved, then purity in the last links seems silly to
me.

Yeah, why not try to make pure water by throwing random gobs of mud into it?

The technology does not yet exist to test
your claim..does it?

The straight wire bypass test seems to suffice.

for speakers and microphones?

Let's see, that's Schopenhauer debating trade trick number two - extend your
opponent's argument beyond its natural range...


When it comes to other components like transducers
(which is Geddes area of expertise and concern) we can't
find any components that meet the current pass/fail
criteria.
Which is interesting as it appears drivers are appearing
on the market
with distortion numbers below that which is considered
inaudible in amplifiers.
Examples, please.

I was trying find Linkwitz characterization studies for
alternative drivers where I (IIRC) he had selected
some less than 1% THD drivers. But I don't see
the tests on his site now..

1 % THD is 10-20 times the threshold of audibility for certain kinds of
amplifier distortion.

and for typical speaker distortions?

There aren't any reasonble speakers that have 1% THD 20-20 KHz at say 110
dB.

Basically, Geddes wants to find a more sophisticated way
to define and gather data for performance parameters
that allows us accept products with lower performance,
providing their performance conforms to the new
parameters. More specificially, instead of saying that
anything whose imperfections are less than say +/- 0.1
dB and 0.01% nonlinear distortion provides subjectively
ideal performance, we find ways to measure and analyze
performance so that equipment with far poorer
performance that that with traditional measures, still
provides subjectively ideal performance.

This would seem to indicate that parametric objectivists
don't have a sound scientific basis upon which to rest
claims of superior performance.

Congratulations Scott. You've just invented a new phrase
that google finds zero instances of on the entire web -
"parametric objectivist" I can guess at what you mean
by it, but rather than doing that, why don't you define
it?

It is simple. People who judge unit performance based
upon accepted parametric measures of performance even if
those measures may not be complete enough to assure subjective
perceived
quality. '

Looks like a straw man.
You're seeing things.

I'm seeing a lot of pseudoscience, bad logic, and misapprehensions in
your
post, Scott

Thats is what you always do.

Only you can stop that Scott - clean up your act and stop deifying vinyl.

[Clyde Slick]

On 15 Aug, 04:18, "Arny Krueger" wrote:




Wrong.

That's only a hypothesis, one that flys in the face


Google can be your
friend.


Examples, please.


Looks like a straw man.-

[Clyde Slick]

On 15 Aug, 14:16, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

That's called an excluded middle argument, Scott.



Proves nothing. for being adapted to a particular room.


Only those who want to be deceived by hype and bad science.


Who made Hiraga into a god?



Not necessarily, that's something else entirely.



I'm seeing a lot of pseudoscience, bad logic, and misapprehensions

[Clyde Slick]

On 15 Aug, 22:21, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


Lestsee - about 99% of everybody has written the LP format off,

No, that's Mr. Howard's game.


Only to the undiscerning.


I already pointed that out : ."



Yes, and... ?

Yes, and...?


Speak for your own flatulence,

Being published in SP is like



Its a poor hypothesis.


Let's see, that's Schopenhauer debating trade trick number two - extend your
opponent's argument beyond its natural range...



Let's see, that's Schopenhauer debating trade trick number two - extend your
opponent's argument beyond its natural range...



There aren't any reasonble...