The funniest thing I read today was the second post in that thread :
"The way I see it is that differences that are heard in audio outside measurements exist but cannot be objectively measured."
So it's all in their head then
The next posts after that pretty much sums it up for me:
"I have to agree with Carl Sagan: Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. What you've stated is a myth that some dealers love to promote. Especially if you trust their opinions, which can lead to you hearing differences that don't exist..... another example of bias."
"My thoughts on this matter is that there are many people who claim that science can't measure these things accurately/completely, but my assumption is that none of those people have ever sat in a laboratory, or played at home with the full spectrum of available test equipment.
I suspect that we can change a cable, and it will slightly alter the sound. And we can measure it. I've seen it done. Now how much of an impact that has, that's where I think the debate should be."
Oh and by the way, people stopped using their ears when they have to LOOK and SEE which component is playing rather than trust a SBT or DBT.
We hear the final sound coming out of speaker. Speakers tend to have more critical distortion than amplifier. Final distortion is a function of many variables, not only amplifier's THD (which is measured at constant condition).
The speaker's distortion is a side discussion. His argument is that all electronics with flat response and .005%THD sound the same. He completely ignores all the other distortions that arise outside the conditions of a 1kHz sine wave test, but don't tell him that. He will inform you that you are wrong. After you read a few pages in or skip up to page 11 onward, the discussion really picks up and he will not admit that his technique is incomplete. We later find he cannot account for his ABX tests or anyone that is supposed to have taken part in them 30 or 40 years past.
Last edited:
Oh, dear me..... Marce..
have you totally forgotten that anything and everything from the professional world of electronics are totally invalid in high end audio....????
Yes I know that. The issue is whether there is correlation between the shape of the square waves with measured jitter. I guess yes, but not so high. My intuition is telling me that those guys from tvc spdif module did measure the jitter but didn't show it because of small correlation (but they should have seen correlation, albeit small).
This is a common situation where a "student" is trying to make a conclusion from theory on hand while missing hands on experience. Only those with a lot of experience understand that your true knowledge is your experience, what you read is only information.
What frustrates me is that I am doing a few variants of a very simple, but well respected ES9023 design. I currently have a few versions, one my own, done by the book, other versions are aimed at moder's and tinkerer's based. But trying to decipher the valid from the obtuse and so what areas to create a mod-able design is sometimes hard (especially when you let yourself be drawn in!).
, other versions are aimed at moder's and tinkerer's based. But trying to decipher the valid from the obtuse and so what areas to create a mod-able design is sometimes hard (especially when you let yourself be drawn in!).
I think you're right. That's the first time anyone explained that to me in that way. I stand corrected.
At supersonic (above audio) frequencies that resonate with the speaker cable acting as an antenna, that energy could make it into an effective input of a power amp (the negative feedback input). It would have to be high enough in frequency for the output impedance of the amp to have risen significantly from the typical <1ohm, but that does happen in most poweramps when the feedback rolls off, which it needs to be designed to do for the sake of "dominant pole" as in "phase margin".
Any other corrections or questions about my above words are encouraged.
I haven't personally verified this idea, but based on the theory that cancellations get filled in by other transducers that have different delay times to room boudaries (reflections), it makes sense that a 4 foot high tower with say four 8 inch woofers in it might fill the room with a more even acoustic signal. One woofer would be worse case, nothing else to fill in it's cancellations created by room acoustics. With a woofer on each side (typical arrangement), they'd fill in each others cancellations on the X axis (left to right), but likely still have the same cancellation frequencies on the Y axis (distance to floor and ceiling). A tower of woofers would theoretically reduce the cancellations on the Y axis. I'm guessing that the improvement would be audible.
I noticed that many high end speaker manufacturers have woofer towers (McIntosh, Infinity, etc.). The wife acceptance factor could be an issue here.
What I've read is that the younger generation are buying things based primarily on the number of special features. As if it's about "bragability factor". They research it on the web and then order it on the web. Then they end up with something that's got way too many buttons, connectors, menus and new jargon, and years later they still haven't figured out half of what it can do.
I have to admit, I did that when I bought a $500 Yamaha receiver a few years ago. I wanted to update my awareness of the current audio scene. It's a fancy 7 channel thing, with tons of menu options, several decoder options, maybe 12 different reverbs, maybe 20 different surround sound options... As an audio engineer I should like that, but it's just too much, and a hassel to make any changes (endless menus). Now I just want and old fashioned preamp/tuner with KNOBS, and a remote with no more than 10 buttons total.
I think the same thing about cameras these days. Everything is in menus, and a hassle to find and figure out. I keep having to get out a manual and read it, to figure out how to attenuate the mic on my video camera, or do a self timer function on my still camera, or anything else. I was very much into photography 40 years ago, had a darkroom and everything, so I should like lots of options. But they are difficult to use in real life. Your mind should be able to focus on other things (composition, your dinner guests, etc.). I must be getting old.
Yes! I feel much the same about using my cellphone. I can't figure out how to access half the cool things which it can, no doubt, do. This applies double, for using MS-Office.
Bob, even worse CARS. I don't want a touch screen and menu, I want a button I can hit without taking my eyes off the road. BMW i-thinigie? Stupidest thing I have ever seen in a car.
Then we have the 8 point light grey font on silver front panels. At least oppo was very interested when I told them you can;t find their open button easily by feel. Instead of good old industrial designers, we get "artists" who design on a computer and think we only use products in bright studio light.
Don't worry about the generation millennium buying by spec. Thanks to ear buds, they are all deaf anyway. MP3 and a 10% distortion chip amp is fine for them.
Now don't get us all started on MS Office!
Then we have the 8 point light grey font on silver front panels. At least oppo was very interested when I told them you can;t find their open button easily by feel. Instead of good old industrial designers, we get "artists" who design on a computer and think we only use products in bright studio light.
Don't worry about the generation millennium buying by spec. Thanks to ear buds, they are all deaf anyway. MP3 and a 10% distortion chip amp is fine for them.
Now don't get us all started on MS Office!
jn
YES. If the input signal rise time is low, the internal transistors that are trying to quickly switch between off and sat will be forced to be in the linear range longer. So, higher heat.
I have to repeat: Digital is a concept. What we build is bi-stable analog circuits. The laws of physics don't change because the part has a "74LS" instead of "LM" as the prefix.
I use my ears and read the specifications (If it is the honest specifications, some company lie when they write the specifications). The specification is importance not only frequency response, THD at 1kHz, and noise floor. The specifications guarantee that all product was made with same quality. You can not claim it, if there is no specifications.
When you work at quality control of audio product, you can not use your ears only. You can not say the product is failed or defect because you don't like the sound
Digital electronics has branched out and is its own discipline, with its own guidelines, rules and maths (Boolean), why do you and others keep harping on about analogue, we know deep down what the digital waves are made of (and when you get into DIGITAL Signal Integrity you will use S parameters amongst other things), but we have rules, guidelines and other design resources geared to DIGITAL design, we are concerned with transporting BITS, not with infinitely varying signals, we just want to get the correct bit pattern and thus data from device to device. As I have pointed out, maybe instead of over active imaginations maybe some playing with this stuff should read the books and info by those such as Howard Johnson, Eric Bogatin etc. But I believe the forever harping Digital is analogue is so that analogue attributes can be juxtaposed to digital such as the previously mentioned correlation between digital waveform and resultant sound field.
The rise time comment is a bit of a red herring, what can stress the silicon is ringing as it is extra energy that has to be dissipated, rise times are not going downstream receivers problems, stress wise. Of course if you have ringing then Howard Johnson has a whole chapter on how to terminate DIGITAL traces to solve this, either series (which slows the rise time even more) or parallel.
And no the laws of physics only change for Audiophiles.
Well, sort of. ADDA loopback *will* tell it all. (-: Its funny how audiophiles ignore that test, it works for anything.
Here are a few waveforms done through a variety of convertors after 50 loopbacks:
Recording Gear Reviews - Recording - Converter comparison shootout
Recording Gear Reviews - Recording - Converter comparison shootout
- Status
- Not open for further replies.