Alan Hope said:
You'd do well to go to the Audio Engineering Society for some of their key papers on perception. The post above is not, I believe, in accordance with more recent research, at least as far as item 1, JND. There is no single value for JND, it depends on a number of factors, as I stated previously. That's been a bit of a moving target (dropping in magnitude) over the years. You will have to buy the papers, however. Start your search with Toole and/or Olive. They make their living on this, to one degree or another.
Here's some interesting reading just to start. Being an interview, it's a bit self-promotional for the company on the part of Kevin Voecks, but relevant nevertheless.
Interview
It covers several topics discussed at various point in this thread and should give you an indication of the undertaking upon which you're about to embark. This area is an interesting study, albeit time consuming.
Dave
Alan,
A lot of stuff is you'll find is based on the Fletcher/Munson curves that were done ages ago.
Apparently, the jury is still out on how humans actually hear.
I remember reading some time ago that there were new studies that cast some doubt as to the validity of the Fletcher/Munson data (as if there weren't enough areas to be contentious about in audio).
The ear is not a linear device at all, and cannot be calibrated for consistency. Frequency, amplitude, and exposure (fatigue) all greatly affect a human's perception to sound.
Cheers
A lot of stuff is you'll find is based on the Fletcher/Munson curves that were done ages ago.
Apparently, the jury is still out on how humans actually hear.
I remember reading some time ago that there were new studies that cast some doubt as to the validity of the Fletcher/Munson data (as if there weren't enough areas to be contentious about in audio).
The ear is not a linear device at all, and cannot be calibrated for consistency. Frequency, amplitude, and exposure (fatigue) all greatly affect a human's perception to sound.
Cheers
Form Beranek:
Minimum preceptible changes in SPL: "A person is able to detect a change in SPL of about 1 dB for any tone between 50 and 10, 000 cps if the level of the tone is greater than 50 dB above the threshold (of hearing) for that tone. Under ideal laboratory listening conditions .....changes in level of as little as 0.3dB can be detected by the ear in the middle frequency range. "
Minimum preceptible changes in SPL: "A person is able to detect a change in SPL of about 1 dB for any tone between 50 and 10, 000 cps if the level of the tone is greater than 50 dB above the threshold (of hearing) for that tone. Under ideal laboratory listening conditions .....changes in level of as little as 0.3dB can be detected by the ear in the middle frequency range. "
Another good paper might be this one (gotta buy them from the AES, though):
Allan Devantier AES paper
This 2002 paper essentially supported Toole's research with regard to frequency response and power response measured in an anechoic environment and a listening panel's perception. I'm not sure if there's anything related to JND.
Dave
Allan Devantier AES paper
This 2002 paper essentially supported Toole's research with regard to frequency response and power response measured in an anechoic environment and a listening panel's perception. I'm not sure if there's anything related to JND.
Dave
Cheers guys - all points taken. I suspect if you guys dipped into my own field of anaesthesia I would react in exactly the same way.
I will look into some parts which catch my interest. I am aware of the investment in time and effort that it takes to properly master a science and I simply can't go there.
I may occasionally ask for some clarification, or tentatively submit any stuff that I find particularly interesting.
Alan
I will look into some parts which catch my interest. I am aware of the investment in time and effort that it takes to properly master a science and I simply can't go there.
I may occasionally ask for some clarification, or tentatively submit any stuff that I find particularly interesting.
Alan
Alan Hope said:
The best parallel to audio that I can think of is photography.
How critical is FR?
IMO, linearity it is critical. FR therefore is very critical. Of course, a lot of subjectivists will disagree, they will claim it's how it sounds subjectively, is more important, and the final barometer.
In the case of a driver with a clearly choppy or out of whack FR, to me, that's purely someone's personal preference, but in the case of FR's being fairly benign, I allow for the possibility that measurements don't tell the entire story.
I will debate what I think constitues good sound, but I won't argue preferences.
But back to the analogy of photography,.... if there is optical distortion, and film distortion, then you have a distorted picture.
If you care about transparency and realism, then distortion is not good. If what you care about is how the picture touches you primarily on an emotional level, then you might not be so focused and critical on transparency.
The root cause is more often than not, the recordings audiophiles listen too. It's the unfortunate truth. There are a lot of mediocre recordings. Sometimes a system's colorations will minimize the aberrations on a recording.
In the case of room effects, room acoustics can negate the potential for improvement in system performance by having (measurably) better performing drivers.
Simply put, if the room acoustics are bad, then you won't be able to hear the differences in better drivers as much.
Cheers
would suggest you heard what you wanted to hear. Certainly whatevery you believe,^ Quote from John.
As stated i am unbiased, but heres a true story.
Once they gathered several "Golden Ears" to evaluate the difference between several high end cables. In truth they went to Wal Mart and purchased off the shelf cables. The area between the amp and speakers was covered by a panel and the tech would appear to come out and connect different high end cables and announce this is the (mega bucks) XYZ cable. Well the initial set of cables(Wal Mart) was never changed. All the "Golden Ears" would report that this cable or that cable had better resolution or cleaner highs or even a deeper sound stage than another. In essence it was all the same cable that was purchased for < 20$ US.
So much for subjective.
ron
As stated i am unbiased, but heres a true story.
Once they gathered several "Golden Ears" to evaluate the difference between several high end cables. In truth they went to Wal Mart and purchased off the shelf cables. The area between the amp and speakers was covered by a panel and the tech would appear to come out and connect different high end cables and announce this is the (mega bucks) XYZ cable. Well the initial set of cables(Wal Mart) was never changed. All the "Golden Ears" would report that this cable or that cable had better resolution or cleaner highs or even a deeper sound stage than another. In essence it was all the same cable that was purchased for < 20$ US.
So much for subjective.
ron
G'day Alan,
The bread box is probably not an ideal candidate for testing EnABL on the baffle given the tight space between the edge and driver.
Also it looks like the edge protrudes from the front of the baffle.
Here are some thoughts on what to try - see pic below:
1. EnABL inside the box where the red line is.
I have not tried this. But given that the box is open and you have no damping, based on my experience I would presume EnABL will make an audible difference.
2. Make the pattern small enough to fit on the narrow edge.
I have tried this on some old speakers - but the edge protrudes about half an inch from the baffle.
I can hear a slight difference but nothing close to the obvious change you get with a flat baffle.
3. EnABL one row on front baffle with one block space from corner, the second row on the outside with no block space from the corner).
I haven't tried this approach...just a hunch after thinking about your idea of putting EnABL around the outside of the baffle.
Cheers,
Alex
Attachments
ronc said:
You are neglecting the possibility that the cables were slowly "burning in" (simmering on low heat if you will) and therefore changing in resolution, soundstage depth, cleanliness of highs, PRAT, sub-atomic microdynamics, etc, etc, just as described by the (self assessed) hearing superheroes. Try to be a bit more open minded and not so dismissive because you have failed to consider all the possibilities Ron.
cheers,
AJ
Well, just done a google session on variations of "double blind hifi" - there's plenty of material. There is a big interest with cables in this, but amps have been done too.
The consistent message is that those who took part in double-blind tests found cables/power leads/amps etc FAR more difficult to identify/differentiate than they expected. Quick A/Bs were more revealing, but allowing the ears to settle in to a moderately long listen pretty much fully concealed differences.
Mains cables seemed to fare slightly better in double blind tests than interconnects and speaker cables.
Double-blind amp tests were a disaster for the subjectivists. This report-of-a-report is fun:
Double blind amps test
Overall, objectivists 1 subjectivists 0. I think the message is clear: without being double blinded, audio opinions are pretty much worthless.
The consistent message is that those who took part in double-blind tests found cables/power leads/amps etc FAR more difficult to identify/differentiate than they expected. Quick A/Bs were more revealing, but allowing the ears to settle in to a moderately long listen pretty much fully concealed differences.
Mains cables seemed to fare slightly better in double blind tests than interconnects and speaker cables.
Double-blind amp tests were a disaster for the subjectivists. This report-of-a-report is fun:
Double blind amps test
Overall, objectivists 1 subjectivists 0. I think the message is clear: without being double blinded, audio opinions are pretty much worthless.
DBT's
Here we go!!
Alan..
If you want some real fun reading, check out some of the postings archived in RAHE (google groups, I think) from 10 years ago or so, maybe search on Arnie Krueger or Stewart Pinkerton...
http://www.pcabx.com/
http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/49429-6-subjective-objective-threads-ended
Have fun..
John L.
Alan Hope said:
Here we go!!
Alan..
If you want some real fun reading, check out some of the postings archived in RAHE (google groups, I think) from 10 years ago or so, maybe search on Arnie Krueger or Stewart Pinkerton...
http://www.pcabx.com/
http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/49429-6-subjective-objective-threads-ended
Have fun..
John L.
Alan,
Yeah, but you can't discount those awesome glowing tubes in SRPP parafeed OTL (m-o-u-s-e) configuration, the sleek fat 0.00000000001% oxygen interleaved copper cables and...uh...those funny rectangle blocks of acrylic, ummm, paint?
Mains fared best in DBT? Wow, I wouldn't have guessed. Time to do some research...
Carl
Yeah, but you can't discount those awesome glowing tubes in SRPP parafeed OTL (m-o-u-s-e) configuration, the sleek fat 0.00000000001% oxygen interleaved copper cables and...uh...those funny rectangle blocks of acrylic, ummm, paint?
Mains fared best in DBT? Wow, I wouldn't have guessed. Time to do some research...
Carl
Subjective testing
Not to add fuel to the " subjective " fire, today I didn't work due to "atmospheric conditions", and got bored, ended up hitting a link for Boing Boing...
Do coat hangers sound as good as Monster cables?
www.boingboing.net/2008/03/03/do-coat-hangers-soun.html
John B.
Not to add fuel to the " subjective " fire, today I didn't work due to "atmospheric conditions", and got bored, ended up hitting a link for Boing Boing...
Do coat hangers sound as good as Monster cables?
www.boingboing.net/2008/03/03/do-coat-hangers-soun.html
John B.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.