The aforementioned two-tone experiments showed that at low levels when listening to two tones simultaneously - like for example 800 and 1000 Hz - the observed pitch is 200 Hz. the addition of more harmonics (of the missing fundamentals) strengthens the impression, but basically two tones are sufficient to evoke the impression of the fundamental.
According to the experiments, there was some "magic" in higher harmonics, when using 400 and 600 Hz, the effect (observing the pitch at 200 Hz) would be less pronounced compared to using 800 Hz and 1000 Hz
According to the experiments, there was some "magic" in higher harmonics, when using 400 and 600 Hz, the effect (observing the pitch at 200 Hz) would be less pronounced compared to using 800 Hz and 1000 Hz
Hi Mark (Markw4) ... hope you will get better soon ...
And then, in due time, might I ask you to give some feedback on your post #559 .. ?
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...between-some-dacs.386815/page-28#post-7049729
I remember you have mentioned doing this in another thread (and I know it is a bit off-topic here but hope it will be ok), yet when I simulate adding such a resistor to a decoupling network the frequency response difference of the network before and after the resistor added is negligible. Do you have an idea why this may be working (what it does)?
Cheers,
Jesper
And then, in due time, might I ask you to give some feedback on your post #559 .. ?
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...between-some-dacs.386815/page-28#post-7049729
I remember you have mentioned doing this in another thread (and I know it is a bit off-topic here but hope it will be ok), yet when I simulate adding such a resistor to a decoupling network the frequency response difference of the network before and after the resistor added is negligible. Do you have an idea why this may be working (what it does)?
Cheers,
Jesper
So is pretty much everything else up to a point. The problem here is while it is simply accepted in other fields that all that is required of engineering is to provide viable options in audio there seems to be a belief that engineering can tell you the option to choose.
I think he been talking about finding the optimum load condition for the regulator, not frequency response of the passive network itself. With load in the optimum range, the regulator open loop gain is maxed out, and that is giving a strong difference also in the frequency response.
(if the treshold from underbiased to normal operation is crossed)
Cars don't fundamentally involve the exploitation of a human perceptual illusion, which stereophonic reproduction does. So, you're asserting a faulty comparison which is, apples versus oranges.
Your certitude in your beliefs only suggests to me, an absence of a complete system perspective. Yes, of course, audio is science and engineering, but a pure objectivist, which you seem to be presenting yourself as, almost invariably only refers to the engineering of the signal transfer links. Either largely, or completely, ignoring the ear/brain application objective of the chain. This isn't the engineering of space shuttles, this is only audio, the engineering of an audio signal transfer path is trivial by comparison. A point correctly made by objectivists. The controversy, such as it is, centers around the fact that the signal transfer path isn't the whole system chain, only representing the least complex, most well understood part of it.
To make my own position on this clear; of course, there is science to the behavior of the ear/brain element of the chain as well, although I don't know whether that science is yet exhaustive. In any case, such ear/brain science doesn't seem to be commonly leveraged/exploited for reproduction, as seems evidenced by the products commonly available on the home audio market, particularly among the more affordable products. In other words, there isn't yet the engineering understanding to most effectively exploit the known ear/brain science in to forming the illusion of a more live-event sounding audio reproduction.
Last edited:
As a full stop denialist (is this a "term of endearment"?) you need us denialists, otherwise the conversations might go by acceptists like;
Tommy... you heard anything yet Boris.
Boris... no... how about you Jimmy
Jimmy... no ... how about you Waldo
Waldo... nope... how about you Tommy.... shall we meet again tomorrow? (back to top)
Of course... we can use you too...
Last edited:
My former boss offered an important insight. I sought his counsel on a tough decision. He said, remember, as leaders we hire engineers to design our products and lawyers to offer us advice. But we make the tough calls and then live we with it.
Same applies in audio. IMHO diyaudio.com is an engineering site and hobbyists are guests. Appreciate the skills but there it ends.
Is this an "appeal to authority" argument?... or does it contain other fallacies?
Below is a master list of logical fallacies...
https://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm
Last edited:
I think you are going to have to put that in context but then again you man-in-service-of-the-machine types tend to have difficulty with context particularly the human kind.
No, no, engineering of course provides viable options also in audio. The problem are many audiophiles seem to believe that you can just ignore science and engineering.
There are many studies on the human perception, and audio research takes these into account.
However, why should a piece of audio equipment be deemed superior when all it does is to modify the content in a way to make it more "pleasing" - for instance by adding negative phase second harmonic distortion to create the illusion or a deeper soundstage?
Absolutely not, I do not ignore them. But I am very suspicious of products that abuse of those "ear/brain application objective of the chain" (which frankly, now that I think, I am sure your phrase is complete nonsense, you mean psychoacoustics perhaps?)
True, so why some audio stuff costs like space shuttles? ;-) (not really, but you get my point).
Ok, so we have two situations.
1. We are at a live music venue. The audio waves enter our ears, they are processed by the brain.
2. We are listening to a recording. The audio waves enter our ears, they are processed by the brain.
in both cases the second part is the same. So we just need the recording AND its reproduction to approximate the live music event signal at the ears of the listener. In other words, accurate reproduction does not need the second part?
The science is probably close to exhaustive, if not already there, but perhaps a lot of audiophiles expect from audio reproduction to be "better" than the event which is, in my opinion, impossible, in any rationally definable way.
Roberto
w
Nice
Of course by science and engineering I do not refer only to audio equipment designs. Science includes physiology, biology, psychoacoustics, neurology, and so on.
Nice
Of course by science and engineering I do not refer only to audio equipment designs. Science includes physiology, biology, psychoacoustics, neurology, and so on.True but it is only audio and ignoring the fundamentals has no real consequence.
You answered your own question. "To be pleased" is the actual reason for listening to music, for most people anyway. Why else would we do it? Certainly not to get aroused by a components specifications or engineered splendour. Forest for trees really.
Ones enjoyment is a personal thing. Rationally definable, as you put it, is mostly only required (and often abused) when a corporation is trying to mass produce something for a larger market share and requires it simplified to a handful of "key points" or "benchmarks" perhaps for marketing. As with many things personal and subjective (such as enjoying music), there is a great variety in what gets us there, and "rationally definable" is but one, or even only a part of one.
Yeah. And for those that we do not ignore the fundamentals it also does not have real consequences. I mean, fools with too much money telling us we "do not listen carefully" or that "our equipment is nor revealing enough" does not make our life worse.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.