Are you kidding?
Measure the same and sound the same: Always... or you have either not measured the right thing or you are fooling yourself.
Measure different and sound the same: Possible... differences are below the threshold of audibility or you are fooling yourself.
Measure different and sound different: Possible... differences are above the threshold of audibility or you are fooling yourself.
Measure the same and sound different: Impossible... if they do, you have either not measured the right thing or you are fooling yourself.
It's the "fooling yourself" bit that demands listening in a controlled environment. It is a pity how that bit is generally ignored.
Measure the same and sound the same: Always... or you have either not measured the right thing or you are fooling yourself.
Measure different and sound the same: Possible... differences are below the threshold of audibility or you are fooling yourself.
Measure different and sound different: Possible... differences are above the threshold of audibility or you are fooling yourself.
Measure the same and sound different: Impossible... if they do, you have either not measured the right thing or you are fooling yourself.
It's the "fooling yourself" bit that demands listening in a controlled environment. It is a pity how that bit is generally ignored.
Mr. E. Where are the valid listening tests that correlate the measures to what we hear?
Until those can be produced, the assumption that the measures can tell us how something sounds, is a subjective choice made by the measurer.
I am not saying that measures are not useful, they are very useful to the designer/developer.
dave
Until those can be produced, the assumption that the measures can tell us how something sounds, is a subjective choice made by the measurer.
I am not saying that measures are not useful, they are very useful to the designer/developer.
dave
It may be all this a mass delusion phenomenon... Some peoples do hear improvements what is not supposing to be real... Something like a larger soundscene, with more precise placement of sound elements in that soundscene, and so on. Well, well...
Maybe we may involve some psychoanalysts into this discussion, beside the all other tests and measurements...
I was thinking too that such improvement effect it may be something unreal, a psychoacoustic effect, or so. I felt the need to verify this myself. Therefore I did my modest/simple testing to verify my own perceptions in this regard.
I implemented this filtering for someone else, who never thought what about it may sounds like the improvements, how it may be heard, etc. I did this experiment in two cases. These cases was some guys unknown with each other, in very different geographical places, with no any contact in between. They did not knew it whatsoever all about what we may discuss now and here, or something relating to a such possible improvements. They never knew at that time about this trick with this filtering cap. They knew very well how it sounded their devices before, and they had quite large listening experiences.
The guys get the devices modified accordingly, without any precise informations about what was improved/modified. I asked them to describe me how they appreciate the sound, how they perceive the improvements.
I was very surprised to get reported the same kind of perceptions I had/have myself using this cap as known.
Well, someone may already react: another anecdote...
Maybe we may involve some psychoanalysts into this discussion, beside the all other tests and measurements...
I was thinking too that such improvement effect it may be something unreal, a psychoacoustic effect, or so. I felt the need to verify this myself. Therefore I did my modest/simple testing to verify my own perceptions in this regard.
I implemented this filtering for someone else, who never thought what about it may sounds like the improvements, how it may be heard, etc. I did this experiment in two cases. These cases was some guys unknown with each other, in very different geographical places, with no any contact in between. They did not knew it whatsoever all about what we may discuss now and here, or something relating to a such possible improvements. They never knew at that time about this trick with this filtering cap. They knew very well how it sounded their devices before, and they had quite large listening experiences.
The guys get the devices modified accordingly, without any precise informations about what was improved/modified. I asked them to describe me how they appreciate the sound, how they perceive the improvements.
I was very surprised to get reported the same kind of perceptions I had/have myself using this cap as known.
Well, someone may already react: another anecdote...
Last edited:
Was that actually said? I believe what was said was that if a difference could be heard with high success then a measurable delta could be found. Not how that difference will manifest itself in the brain.
Re-reading the text in posts#1 thru #6 it seems clear that Joe feels it is not the filter response itself that produces the desired effect, but the fact that the filter is “directly impinged on the DAC”. The response in the audio band can be EQ’d flat further downstream and the desired effect remains. If this is true(and I have no idea if it is) then I’d wager that only particular filtering would elicit the desired effect.
Then again, most of the positive comments on the mod describe what one might expect if the top octave was subtly rolled off. In post#6 Joe states his preference for leaving the HF roll off in the response.
My issue with trying to measure what may or may not be going on…is all the possible circuit options and component values that “work” to varying degrees. If Joe could provide details of an easily/cheapily acquirable DAC or CD/DVD player and the exact (hopefully minimal) mods that produce what he feels is the audio equivalent of a slam-dung as far as desired effect, I would test it. Otherwise I’d feel I’m just on a snipe hunt.
In the meantime, I am working with Joe offline to try and get him in a position to where he can provide measurements to go along with what he feels he is hearing.
But maybe we do and wouldn't it be great to sort another piece of the puzzle. Certainly the risk of failure is no reason not to try!
Of course with this kind of a mindset, one can veritably claim anything without needing to provide a hypothesis to actually test...
No one is suggesting that measurements will tell you how something sounds.
If two things *really* sound different it is because they produce different sounds. That they *really* sound different can be stated only if there are no psycho-acoustic tricks/unconscious effects dominating the result.
Then, it is obvious that the two things will measure differently.
Basically, if the difference is not in the mind, it is in the device under test.
Once a difference is established, it then makes sense to say "I prefer A to B.".
If there is no measurable difference, preference is due to reasons beyond the sound of the units.
Those that don't fear failure are those that make the greatest advancements.
Those that do fear failure, do little.
That makes no sense.
I claim nothing here just poking holes into incomplete arguments. SY wants proof as do many others. The only proof possible is that the mod works, and it is strong proof because the test is weak.
Any measurement differences would be useful as they can provide further lines of inquiry, but they only prove that there is a measurement difference, but that may be enuff for those who have subjectively decided that measurement is enuff.
The hypothesis is: This mod makes the sonics better. Or better: This mod allows more information to come thru.
dave
I claim nothing here just poking holes into incomplete arguments. SY wants proof as do many others. The only proof possible is that the mod works, and it is strong proof because the test is weak.
Any measurement differences would be useful as they can provide further lines of inquiry, but they only prove that there is a measurement difference, but that may be enuff for those who have subjectively decided that measurement is enuff.
The hypothesis is: This mod makes the sonics better. Or better: This mod allows more information to come thru.
dave
One should understand here that is not about different sounds involved with/without this filter/cap in place.
Nothing sounds different in this respect. The same high quality sounds for the whole spectre.
The improvements refer to the soundstage. This soundstage is perceived as more precise reproduced, the volume of it is improved, as more precise placement of the sound elements into the space.
Therefore it is advised to DIY this. To know one by himself what this is all about first, before emitting hypothesis, explanations, suppositions...
Nothing sounds different in this respect. The same high quality sounds for the whole spectre.
The improvements refer to the soundstage. This soundstage is perceived as more precise reproduced, the volume of it is improved, as more precise placement of the sound elements into the space.
Therefore it is advised to DIY this. To know one by himself what this is all about first, before emitting hypothesis, explanations, suppositions...
Ken Newton's comments on Joe's homepage seem to say otherwise...
“…the perceived sound goes from 'digital edginess' to 'analog smoothness'. The effect is very obvious, and surprising. Such smoothness is not to be mistaken for some kind of 'smoothed over' character, as the clarity across the band increases.
The Xxxxxxx Effect has removed upper midrange brashness and glare. The audible result of this removal is the restoration of more the sort of natural treble balance produced by live instruments... brass, cymbals, and bells now have quite distinctive tone color and weight. In addition, and perhaps surprisingly... a much more weighty sounding lower midrange and bass... The perceived beneficial affect on the lower frequency balance is quite strong.”
- Status
- Not open for further replies.