Commercial audio products? No. I'm retired, and audio is a hobby. Maybe I will design a dac someday, don't know.
Any commercial products? Chief EE for cyclotron-based fast neutron therapy system and PET isotope production system. Designed various subsystems, trained and supervised Jr. engineers and programmers. We sold it to UCLA. Would that count as commercial?
Any commercial products? Chief EE for cyclotron-based fast neutron therapy system and PET isotope production system. Designed various subsystems, trained and supervised Jr. engineers and programmers. We sold it to UCLA. Would that count as commercial?
Hm, might be that we have a different understanding of evidence, but in his post, Markw4 described something that was more akin to a qualitative test method than to a quantitative method.
So, if I understand your motivation correctly, you're complaining about the missing "substance" of claims in descriptions of the listeners.
Not meant offensive, but otoh you seem to have absolutely no problem with Evenharmonics posting unsubstantiated claims, so, what is the difference?
See, for example, my question about the evidence for Evenharmonics categorical assertion that "even cheap DACS are audible transparent". He wasn't able to show any evidence. When asked again, he offered an unsubstantiated claim about the reason for my view on certain controlled listening tests, as if that would play a role.
All I had done was presenting my arguments about these test procedures, backed by the published scientific evidence; knowing that some of the articles might be hard to obtain for some users, I offered (under fair use rules) to send out the PDFs. Some users asked and got them, guess who never asked for the papers and who most likely never read any of the studies, but nevertheless posts unsubstantiated claims about my viewpoint?
No doubt, discussions can be heated from time to time, so, it is good advice to take everything with a pinch of salt, but I'm interested in your view.
@PMA,
Absolutely, no generalization, but as said before, that still would hold true if a usual quantitative controlled listening test would have been done. Generalization needs a lot more effort, don't you agree?
Yes, we clearly have a different understanding. As I read it Markw4 & friends listened to some music and then gave some vague opinions. To me that is not a test at all.
I have not posted anything about the listeners. The missing substance is that we know nothing about the setup nor about the devices that were listened. We only have unsubstantiated claims about the sound quality of the devices as compared to other devices.
Where do you get this? I have not made any comments regarding Evenharmonics' postings.
It seems that you have trouble taking postings at face value. No need to read between the lines.
You were warned about trolling. Failure to head the warning as resulted in mute mode.
I was and still am waiting for your answer on what you would consider an acceptable evidence but you never answered. There are many audio tests out there but they aren't acceptable evidence to you because of some Bogeyman that you made up.
I suppose Markw4 would agree, but presumably for different reasons.
Take it as an opportunity to gather pieces of information, which might help to refine any serious attempt.
A typical difference between quantitative and qualitative methods is the usage of open-ended questions in the latter. Even, if you don't conceal the equipment (that is unknown to the listeners) and you'll get independently identical, quite detailed descriptions about a perceived specific detail of the reproduction, then it is very unlikely that it happens due to guessing. Just as an example while even such informal listening events can be useful.
Not so much "reading between the lines", more missing some lines.
Please consider, that it is an open forum, not just a dialogue between two of us, but for me, acceptable evidence are results from methodologically sound experiments; experiments, well planned and executed, including a detailed description and the data.
Which is exactly the same thing. Making assumptions based on non-existent information.Not so much "reading between the lines", more missing some lines.
I'm only human, after all ...
Indeed, creating a 3D visual world from just two 2D images on our retinas involves making shed-loads of assumptions. Which are sometimes erroneous and what we then term 'optical illusions'.
Absolutely, otherwise how to get a soundstage with instruments/players at various locations L/R and front/back with only two emitters? The whole thing's an 'audio illusion'. But as to specific errors of perception - is there any demonstration of one? Seems likely they'll exist.
Is this a reasonable summary of the thread?
Some people have had informal and uncontrolled listening sessions involving various DACs and have shared their impressions.
Some others have stated they don't trust informal listening sessions. Some of those would prefer measurements.
It was then argued that it's not always clear which measurements are relevant, and that the usual measurements don't cover everything.
For some reason, we needed more than 650 posts for all this.
Some people have had informal and uncontrolled listening sessions involving various DACs and have shared their impressions.
Some others have stated they don't trust informal listening sessions. Some of those would prefer measurements.
It was then argued that it's not always clear which measurements are relevant, and that the usual measurements don't cover everything.
For some reason, we needed more than 650 posts for all this.
Seems reasonable, but it's IMHO a major achievement that a thread about such a controversial topic is running quite smoothly with just a minimum of moderator action.
Maybe we are able to work out some agreement about the basics of the needed combination of measurements and good listening experiments, preventing us from a restart at point zero in each of these threads.
The "soundstage illusion" is surely one of the most striking, but another example is the so-called Shepard tones.
Lots of experiments on this were done in the 1960s and '70s. "Real" harmonics strengthen the impression of the (nonexistent) fundamental, presumably because the coincidental onset of all harmonics is used by our hearing sense to detect instruments/sounds.
Addition of higher harmonics works (according to the experiments) up to ~1400-1500 Hz, additional ones above that region don't work to that effect anymore.
Two-tone experiments elicit different mechanisms dependent on the intensity, due to the nonlinearity of the auditory system. If the intensity of the two tones is "low" and the frequency of the higher tone is varied, at certain differences beating sensations are perceived, but so-called "beating holes" exist in the range. Our auditory system is clearly sensitive to cyclic changes. The phenomenon of the "missing fundamental" arises if the cyclic changes are stable and pitch is perceived as the rate of the maxima of the complex tone pattern.
D
Deleted member 537459
Just for info, the setup was Soundlab ESL speakers powered by Marantz mono power amps.
One of listened devices was the TWSDAC-LT discrete DAC driven by the TWSAFB-LT FIFO buffer and a pair of TWTMC-DRIXO oscillators at 11.2896 and 12.288 MHz.
Some technical infos can be found in the attached files.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.