You had a pre-existing belief but still an open mind about that and so you made the ABx test.
It is quite unfortunate that the answer alternatives to the question in the topic were formulated in a fashion that made it possible to just state an opinion. IMO a better formulation of "Yes" and "No" answers would have been:
"Yes, I can reliably detect a difference in level-matched AB(x) test"
...
"No, I cannot reliably detect a difference in level-matched AB(x) test"
I'm quite sure that the number of honest "Yes" answers would then have been zero, but the number of honest "No" answers would have remained about the same.
As far as the visual aspect is concerned, in the industrial field, as everyone knows, machines have been designed with cameras that, with the support of adequate software, are able to recognize the shape, color and defects of certain industrially produced objects.
I dream that one day an "artificial ear" (I did not say a microphone) will be designed that, connected to adequate software, is able to recognize the sound quality of a musical or instrumental message that is submitted to it.
I'm sure that we could already start to carry out experiments in this regard, but it would require huge investments that no one at the moment seems to have any intention of investing in.
But it so happens that humans are still groping in the dark regarding their knowledge of physics.
Sure, we know something, but it's not enough to get excited about.
At the end of the day, we are still primitive beings.
Even in the field of communication.
And, of course, I'm talking about the mankind again, not one person in particular.
I dream that one day an "artificial ear" (I did not say a microphone) will be designed that, connected to adequate software, is able to recognize the sound quality of a musical or instrumental message that is submitted to it.
I'm sure that we could already start to carry out experiments in this regard, but it would require huge investments that no one at the moment seems to have any intention of investing in.
But it so happens that humans are still groping in the dark regarding their knowledge of physics.
Sure, we know something, but it's not enough to get excited about.
At the end of the day, we are still primitive beings.
Even in the field of communication.
And, of course, I'm talking about the mankind again, not one person in particular.
😉
A few arguments in favor of speaker placement - most of us don't even have any in this regard:
Move the loudspeakers together once to zero distance. Listen. Move them 10 cm apart, listen. Move them further apart, listen. And keep doing this until the sound image tears apart. Then move them together again until they play together: most "stereo signals" are mono (present on both channels). Since loudspeakers have different imaging sizes and shapes, you can determine the optimum set-up in this way. It will be that your loudspeakers will be less than one meter apart (center-center), so that width, depth, height, coherence, contour, colors... interact and become "round".
Now we also have an instrument with which we can detect sound differences between cables or DACs for example. If the sound stage changes to such an extent that we have to get off our butts to reposition the loudspeakers...-)
Go ahead and check, because I know you didn't know it before;-)
A few arguments in favor of speaker placement - most of us don't even have any in this regard:
Move the loudspeakers together once to zero distance. Listen. Move them 10 cm apart, listen. Move them further apart, listen. And keep doing this until the sound image tears apart. Then move them together again until they play together: most "stereo signals" are mono (present on both channels). Since loudspeakers have different imaging sizes and shapes, you can determine the optimum set-up in this way. It will be that your loudspeakers will be less than one meter apart (center-center), so that width, depth, height, coherence, contour, colors... interact and become "round".
Now we also have an instrument with which we can detect sound differences between cables or DACs for example. If the sound stage changes to such an extent that we have to get off our butts to reposition the loudspeakers...-)
Go ahead and check, because I know you didn't know it before;-)
In cases where you have digital volume control before any filter, it is a non-issue when you actually use that digital volume control and set it to a value at least a couple of decibels below full volume.
There are people who would put the digital control on full volume and use an analogue volume control instead, thinking that they need to do that to get the full resolution out of their DAC. They very likely have their DAC clipping on many recordings.
There are other DAC and ASRC manufacturers than AKM. For example, the TI SRC4392 ASRC has the digital volume control on the output side.
Then it may be better to normal audio hobbyists to mention the chip(s) that is/are affected by the phenomenon. This to prevent worrying about stuff that needs no worrying, it is altogether already hard enough to keep up with for result oriented people.
It is a bit tiring to have to know detailed ins and outs of stuff meant for consumers. The chip designers and industry could have designed stuff that just works. Just like CD players once just worked. Power on/off, CD in tray, close tray, press play, pause etc.
It is a bit tiring to have to know detailed ins and outs of stuff meant for consumers. The chip designers and industry could have designed stuff that just works. Just like CD players once just worked. Power on/off, CD in tray, close tray, press play, pause etc.
Last edited:
This thread has run its course, everything that needed to be said has been said, and enough negative electrons have been thrown at each other.
- https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...if-they-both-measure-well.418579/post-7816744
- Status
- Not open for further replies.