Your musical tastes reflect your character.
Alas for him. I had noticed that he avoided any question relating to signal / noise ratios.Yep, Scott’s too.
That said, I thought he was playing this kind of **** on his bench to make sure no one came to disturb him at the office.
Last edited:
Just replace JC, Nelson Pass, Scott Wurcer, etc with super computer. Make designing audio product automate using software.
Even no one do not dare to answer my question.
They do not understand the relationship between measurement and the sound.
Are-you sure Scott is NOT a super computer ?
Because no one is able to answer. A question of thresholds too.
Note that I formulated the same question in a different way:
"Look at all the possible measurements of a speaker set. Does that give you a clue how it will sound?"
Last edited:
I cant see how you can "demo" different chips - my bet is that you dont have that setup to do that clinically correct - if it is even possible. I'm sure it would be a nice and interesting visit but you would only "fool" the less knowing. You argue constantly in the whole forum as the self proclaimed DAC expert - always sure about the facts - your "facts". With great arguing come great responsibility....
//
Well, I dint think this is necessary as I don't think the world is starved on line stages and power amps. This is not where stereo reproduction fail. We need reproduction system architects that looks at the whole system to lift the whole party to a new level. Where are they?
//
@ Billshurv,
Alexandrovich obviously thought that there was sort of a vinyl melting process happening and therefore speculated about the cooling effect of the wet play.
At that time all seem to agree that the rheology of vinyl was still unresolved and up to now I haven't seen any modern experiments. If the comeback of vinyl lasts some for some additional years it might be that there is new interest.
The SEM pictures of wear are sometimes a bit inconclusive, for example comparing Hirsch/Loescher and Alexandrovich.
Btw, I've forgotten to respond to the Shure trackability issue; I've never seen a publication that included the list of records with those extremely high velocities, but we know at least about three of the records. Could it be that you have these in your collection?
I remember that Shure made the offer in their advertising that customers could request a copy of this list.
Alexandrovich obviously thought that there was sort of a vinyl melting process happening and therefore speculated about the cooling effect of the wet play.
At that time all seem to agree that the rheology of vinyl was still unresolved and up to now I haven't seen any modern experiments. If the comeback of vinyl lasts some for some additional years it might be that there is new interest.
The SEM pictures of wear are sometimes a bit inconclusive, for example comparing Hirsch/Loescher and Alexandrovich.
Btw, I've forgotten to respond to the Shure trackability issue; I've never seen a publication that included the list of records with those extremely high velocities, but we know at least about three of the records. Could it be that you have these in your collection?
I remember that Shure made the offer in their advertising that customers could request a copy of this list.
@Scott Wurcer,
does someone always have to do controlled (even blind
) listening tests for every change or is is sufficient to show from time to time that one is able to get positive results and therefore can trust (to a certain agree) his listening abilities?
Humans aren't perfect and that is still true in an experiment.
Usually if the sense do matter in other fields, expert are asked and if the expert thinks a difference is _really_ small additional controlled tests come into play.
But of course the processes are different in dependence of the goals; if experts evaluate for example the olfactory impressions from parfume ingredients they do it of course "blind" but the more interesting part is the most detailed description, as any "I prefer" or "is different" would not help.
The expert who compose the parfumes after, do not use "blind" tests during the process.
But, there were over the years several positive results of such controlled (blind/doubleblind) listening tests reported; see for example our preamplifier tests, the description about the opamps in plastic or metal cans (with participation of Bob Pease) or PMAs. The reported measured numbers afair did not show any differences above the known thresholds of hearing.
(We could add Fremers test during the AES convention in the 80s and others as well)
So, is there acceptance of these results and if so, I'd again ask what we are talking about?
Or is it negation of the results which raises again the question which kind of result/evidence would be considered as sufficient?
does someone always have to do controlled (even blind
) listening tests for every change or is is sufficient to show from time to time that one is able to get positive results and therefore can trust (to a certain agree) his listening abilities?Humans aren't perfect and that is still true in an experiment.
Usually if the sense do matter in other fields, expert are asked and if the expert thinks a difference is _really_ small additional controlled tests come into play.
But of course the processes are different in dependence of the goals; if experts evaluate for example the olfactory impressions from parfume ingredients they do it of course "blind" but the more interesting part is the most detailed description, as any "I prefer" or "is different" would not help.
The expert who compose the parfumes after, do not use "blind" tests during the process.
But, there were over the years several positive results of such controlled (blind/doubleblind) listening tests reported; see for example our preamplifier tests, the description about the opamps in plastic or metal cans (with participation of Bob Pease) or PMAs. The reported measured numbers afair did not show any differences above the known thresholds of hearing.
(We could add Fremers test during the AES convention in the 80s and others as well)
So, is there acceptance of these results and if so, I'd again ask what we are talking about?
Or is it negation of the results which raises again the question which kind of result/evidence would be considered as sufficient?
Last edited:
I still learning. But my guests are about 70% true so far. So, I can improve my design. Too many variable that affect to the sound. And sometime the differences happened only at specific recording.
Learning it useful for make compromise/trade-off of my design.
T. Holman's survey in _Audio_ mid 1970s is plenty close enough for our purposes. If I weren't immobilized by a very old cat sleeping on me I'd post a link, but you probably know it, and probably Bonsai has it on his site.
re: modern vinyl
Cutting heads have a thermal limit that's said (by Deep Thought sources I'm not prepared to divulge at this moment, matter of security don'tcha know, harumpf) to limit the amount of damage that can be done by modern "mastering" algorithms. Vinyl is first derivative of amplitude, etc. Commercially, you don't get rewarded for real dynamics, but you do get punished for being untrackable.
Old vinyl albums are fun to play with, fun to think about, fun to compulse about, and best of all, fun to give away. I'm still living with about 50 feet of the xxx things, and when a friend's children or grandchildren express an interest in some old geezery band, I can dump a catalog on 'em. I call it Punish it Forward.
On a somewhat, but totally not, related note, Simon Whistler (who appears in about half of all YouTube videos, including porn - well, maybe not half) has a new fun-a-gogo video about human hearing: YouTube
Much thanks, as always,
Chris
Best, as always,
Chris
I found the sound of his voice, particularly the seemingly random intonation unbearable.
Don't forget Walton as well!
I have on my action list to get the ones that are listed to try and and see what information we can extract.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.