That is irrelevant in this instance.
Think of it in terms of informtion processing. If this mod is improving things it is because it is letting more information thru the DAC. If that information is not there to start with (ie a poor recording) then we will get no improvement because there is none to be had.
Given the anecdotal evalutions what is happening is 20-40 dB down from the main signal.
dave
Welcome! It highlights how much this thread is on the (unfortunate) and wrong track. Or, better, why I'll stick with understanding the circuit theory and generally discount the subjective components from either side of the debate.
I don't have a way to do this with the files provided. I'd need a swept sine, which means doing it all over again.
Posted below are the frequency responses of A3 vs A1 and B3 vs B3. We see the expected HF roll off that the modification should cause, but I don't know what's going on in the very low end.
Attachments
I don't know. HOLMImpulse allows you do import 2 wav files and compare one to the other. The graph show the frequency response difference. I think it does the same thing with internal measurements, compares the generated test signal file to the recorded signal.
With a swept sine you can see THD and harmonics.
That's what I used.
With a swept sine you can see THD and harmonics.
That's what I used.
Not true, add nice harmonics to the bad recording and it will sound better.
This is the reason why people like harmonic generators like tube output stages, or record players ,while play it back on the correct equipment and it will sound bad, as it should to.
Scott, it wasn't written for you or Stuart or Jan Didden.
If it was, don't you think it might have been presented in an entirely different way? It would also bore most people to death. They don't even read PDF files that only make their eyes glaze over.
And did you completely miss all that free DIY stuff there is on the website? You won't find that on the usual 'commercial' websites.
You know, some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time. Take another example, one that Dave knows well, the Vacuum State website, the original was set up by me for Allen Wright and with Dave's help too. Later it was transferred to a local server in Switzerland, but the domain name search will still show up my name. Go have a look at the numerous schematics and other stuff shown there. Anybody with the intent and reasonable skill can build a full-on RTP Preamp. Again, many of those schematics etc has had, and I am not seeking to brag, input from me. Take for example the FVP preamp circuit, the Phono Stage was Allen's conception and the Line Stage mine. So was the SLCF tube buffer. Many already knows this. The earliest prototyping of the Vacuum State DPA-300B amp was done by me in a Dynaco ST70 chassis, and so on.
I have also posted what I consider quite easy to do DIY projects, with absolutely no thought of any remuneration, except getting a buzz out of others making them. The 'Elsinore' thread has been an object lesson in civility and is steadily heading towards half a million hits. Hundreds of speakers made (I really have no idea how many) and thousands of hours for one reason only - to help you to make a speaker of a quality that they would otherwise not be able to afford. I like that idea and the challenge that is now in it 11th year.
So I wear my DIY colours with pride.
I really shouldn't have to repeat or say any more.
Last edited:
Ah, thanks. I've been immersed in ARTA recently, and I really should play with HOLMImpulse more than I have so far.
You're welcome. The ability to compare to files like this is very handy when someone claims that sine waves are not a valid test. You can use noise, music, speech, sound effects, whatever. It does show only FR difference on non-sine signals, but that at least gives you a real idea with a signal you'd want to listen to.
FWIW, I have checked this function on several types of signals and it works just fine. Simply make a copy of a file, filter and alter the copy anyway you want and compare it to the original. The graph shows exactly what you did, and consistently.
Interesting stuff. The article doesn't really attempt to convince the reader that the research to uncover bias isn't itself biased. More important to me, though, is the impression I get of some scientists seeking instant gratification, much like one hears of in other social contexts.
I didn't know, or had completely forgotten, that G. Ohm was dismissed upon presenting his laws, and had to wait over 20 years for their acceptance.
My point being that truth eventually succeeds, even for unexplainable audio mods.
It's really best to just go with there's nothing terribly unique about "scientists" versus the laity, so to speak. Various human weakness manifest in various ways and no one is exempt.
That said, I don't think these types of controls are going to lead us further bias, but may uncover some newer, more subtle form. It's sort of like chasing the last n'th of noise/distortion (or, well, anything): it's really far more important to eliminate the big stuff first.
Sure. I've never been overly impressed by celebrity, wealth, pre- or post-nominal abbreviations, whatever. We're all just citizens of the world. I deeply appreciate accomplishment, whether it's the person bagging my groceries or designing my electronics. Even music and sculpture.*
What I am mindful of is not uncovering newer, more subtle forms of bias. I'm not certain there is a problem that requires a fix. Or at least a problem fully fleshed out. I want to hold each side to the same standards. Of course I'm not saying controls should be cast aside. I'm saying (and I said in another thread) that the "problem" isn't anything new, and yet it hasn't hampered the scientific revolution significantly.
*This is a response to "that other popular thread," too. Circumstance makes it more timely here.
What I am mindful of is not uncovering newer, more subtle forms of bias. I'm not certain there is a problem that requires a fix. Or at least a problem fully fleshed out. I want to hold each side to the same standards. Of course I'm not saying controls should be cast aside. I'm saying (and I said in another thread) that the "problem" isn't anything new, and yet it hasn't hampered the scientific revolution significantly.
*This is a response to "that other popular thread," too. Circumstance makes it more timely here.
Wildly off topic now, so I'll leave it at this:
Depends on the field Sofa--and I struggle to agree with you that it hasn't hampered scientific revolution. We're making incredible inroads, but one not need look far into psychology/sociology (and their respective bleed-through into economics/government) to see its effects. Or, closer to home for me, in med devices.
Depends on the field Sofa--and I struggle to agree with you that it hasn't hampered scientific revolution. We're making incredible inroads, but one not need look far into psychology/sociology (and their respective bleed-through into economics/government) to see its effects. Or, closer to home for me, in med devices.
Give me one instance when that has happened, just one. Not to mention the sn.. word, because that I am not.
My phone is open to call me from anywhere in the world 24 hours a day. I don't speak down to anybody - pretty much every person I know has expertise that is greater than mine in another field. Clint Eastwood got it right, a man's got to know his limitations.
Interesting thought. In fact, this topic in time, could be a starting point?
Let's see what develops here - both listening wise and testing - then yes, that could be an excellent idea.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.