Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2021 13:36:43 GMT
Because they have better/more important things to do, unlike us. They have more important things to do than winning a Nobel for discovering an entirely new physical parameter of electricity? No I don't think they do. I have a mate who is a physicist, had a number of degrees and higher degrees, listens to lectures on quantum mechanics in the car. He would laugh at some of the things I used to come out with about hi-fi. He was right to do so. if you just take power cables alone some of the stuff the makers come out with, if it were true. would revolutionise physics. Physicists are not interested in investigating it because they already know it's complete bollocks. And what benefit would this new physical parameter of electricity, solely related to audio bring to the world? Don’t forget that the Nobel Prize in Physics is a yearly award given by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for those who have made the most outstanding contributions for mankind in the field of physics. Making a DAC sounding better than another DAC is going to be way down the list of candidates. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 11, 2021 13:39:45 GMT
It's possible they really do sound different , and if they do that will reflect in the measurements. If it doesn't then they don't regardless of whether we perceive that they do or not. No no no no. The measurements are using sine waves or multi discrete frequency inputs to 'represent' music. IMHO that representation is fatally flawed, music has a flow and rhythm that cannot be assessed with test tones. Music will reveal differences in the overall sound, test tones not. don't want to get bogged down in this really as I'm sure neither do you but there's no evidence that this is true - although it can't be disproven either. What controlled testing has been done it does tend to show that people cannot discriminate when they were previously pretty confident that they could. personally I think that not enough testing has been done to be able to conclusively dismiss some claims, I'm not an absolutist about it, just a sceptic. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 11, 2021 13:40:41 GMT
They have more important things to do than winning a Nobel for discovering an entirely new physical parameter of electricity? No I don't think they do. I have a mate who is a physicist, had a number of degrees and higher degrees, listens to lectures on quantum mechanics in the car. He would laugh at some of the things I used to come out with about hi-fi. He was right to do so. if you just take power cables alone some of the stuff the makers come out with, if it were true. would revolutionise physics. Physicists are not interested in investigating it because they already know it's complete bollocks. And what benefit would this new physical parameter of electricity, solely related to audio bring to the world? Don’t forget that the Nobel Prize in Physics is a yearly award given by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for those who have made the most outstanding contributions for mankind in the field of physics. Making a DAC sounding better than another DAC is going to be way down the list of candidates. There would be ramifications way beyond the world of audio replay. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2021 13:44:35 GMT
Really?
|
|
|
|
Post by brucew268 on Dec 11, 2021 13:44:44 GMT
It's possible they really do sound different , and if they do that will reflect in the measurements. If it doesn't then they don't regardless of whether we perceive that they do or not. No no no no. The measurements are using sine waves or multi discrete frequency inputs to 'represent' music. IMHO that representation is fatally flawed, music has a flow and rhythm that cannot be assessed with test tones. Music will reveal differences in the overall sound, test tones not. I agree with Alan. This is silly. Not having yet devised a way to measure all the elements that make music sound one way or another does not have to relate to any fundamental law of physics. It means there is not enough potential application to other fields to make it remotely interesting to most research scientists, and not enough money to cause the HiFi R&D industry to find it.
BTW as a philosophy student I imagine you are already aware of Thomas Khun’s study of the history of scientific paradigms, which show that when certain evidence do not match a prevailing scientific theory or model, most reject it as not possible and ignore it. It takes much time and perseverance against the flow for there to be enough evidence to break down the walls of that worldview and move to a better more inclusive model.
Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if frequency response graphs and waterfall plots did show some difference between caps and the resulting change in sound, but with music being so complex I could imagine it rather difficult to identify and isolate the appropriate correlation. In radio astronomy it seems that much of it was unmeasurable until they found ways to change the noise floor and look on a much smaller amplitude scale and a much larger time scale. Now it is the bread and butter of that industry.
It seems to me that the problem is not whether perception is fallible, influenced by several factors, and can be tricked, but that you have elevated it into an inviolable truth that perception can never right unless objectively provable and perception is not trainable, which is demonstrably false in multiple disciplines. You have elevated perception fallibility way beyond fallibility it to the level of absolute universal dogma. |
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,398
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Dec 11, 2021 14:11:00 GMT
No no no no. The measurements are using sine waves or multi discrete frequency inputs to 'represent' music. IMHO that representation is fatally flawed, music has a flow and rhythm that cannot be assessed with test tones. Music will reveal differences in the overall sound, test tones not. I agree with Alan. This is silly. Not having yet devised a way to measure all the elements that make music sound one way or another does not have to relate to any fundamental law of physics. It means there is not enough potential application to other fields to make it remotely interesting to most research scientists, and not enough money to cause the HiFi R&D industry to find it. BTW as a philosophy student I imagine you are already aware of Thomas Khun’s study of the history of scientific paradigms, which show that when certain evidence do not match a prevailing scientific theory or model, most reject it as not possible and ignore it. It takes much time and perseverance against the flow for there to be enough evidence to break down the walls of that worldview and move to a better more inclusive model. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if frequency response graphs and waterfall plots did show some difference between caps and the resulting change in sound, but with music being so complex, I could imagine it rather difficult to identify and isolate the appropriate correlation. In radio astronomy it seems that much of it was unmeasurable until they found ways to change the noise floor and look on a much smaller amplitude scale and a much larger time scale. Now it is the bread and butter of that industry. It seems to me that the problem is not whether perception is fallible, influenced by several factors, and can be tricked, but that you have elevated it into an inviolable truth that perception can never right unless objectively provable and perception is not trainable, which is demonstrably false in multiple disciplines. You have elevated perception fallibility way beyond fallibility it to the level of absolute universal dogma. Yes, i completely agree with this. Great post. |
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Dec 11, 2021 14:15:20 GMT
listening to 'Psychadelic Furs' first album via Topping E30 - just noticed that foot is tapping like a bastard  bet I would not have to look far to find someone who will say 'Topping E30 has no drive' I'm not surprised you're tapping away like a bastard, Macca, Topping dac's certainly don't lack in that area, plus of course the timing and rhythm of your Krell amp, and the get up and go of Focal speakers, you'll be lucky if your foot doesn't fall off  |
|
|
|
Post by sq225917 on Dec 11, 2021 18:38:07 GMT
Or it could just be an emotional response to the music in and of itself and nothing to do with the reproduction quality..
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,398
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Dec 11, 2021 18:54:08 GMT
Or it could just be an emotional response to the music in and of itself and nothing to do with the reproduction quality.. That absolutely happens too. Proper bopping to some Hans Theessink earlier via a Sony Bluetooth speaker. Great shout Simon. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 12, 2021 8:52:10 GMT
No no no no. The measurements are using sine waves or multi discrete frequency inputs to 'represent' music. IMHO that representation is fatally flawed, music has a flow and rhythm that cannot be assessed with test tones. Music will reveal differences in the overall sound, test tones not. I agree with Alan. This is silly. Not having yet devised a way to measure all the elements that make music sound one way or another does not have to relate to any fundamental law of physics. It means there is not enough potential application to other fields to make it remotely interesting to most research scientists, and not enough money to cause the HiFi R&D industry to find it.
BTW as a philosophy student I imagine you are already aware of Thomas Khun’s study of the history of scientific paradigms, which show that when certain evidence do not match a prevailing scientific theory or model, most reject it as not possible and ignore it. It takes much time and perseverance against the flow for there to be enough evidence to break down the walls of that worldview and move to a better more inclusive model.
Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if frequency response graphs and waterfall plots did show some difference between caps and the resulting change in sound, but with music being so complex I could imagine it rather difficult to identify and isolate the appropriate correlation. In radio astronomy it seems that much of it was unmeasurable until they found ways to change the noise floor and look on a much smaller amplitude scale and a much larger time scale. Now it is the bread and butter of that industry.
It seems to me that the problem is not whether perception is fallible, influenced by several factors, and can be tricked, but that you have elevated it into an inviolable truth that perception can never right unless objectively provable and perception is not trainable, which is demonstrably false in multiple disciplines. You have elevated perception fallibility way beyond fallibility it to the level of absolute universal dogma. yes I am familiar with Philosophy of Science. However I already pointed out that I am not dogmatic about it. The problem is your theory has no evidence to support it whereas mine has lots. Present some evidence then there'll be something to discuss. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 12, 2021 8:55:44 GMT
Or it could just be an emotional response to the music in and of itself and nothing to do with the reproduction quality.. The original question was regarding which DACs are 'foot tapping' and which are not. I will continue to maintain that this is not a property of DACs until someone can demonstrate otherwise. that people are saying they get this response from 'lo-fi' equipment only strengthens my argument. |
|
|
|
Post by brucew268 on Dec 12, 2021 10:06:53 GMT
...BTW as a philosophy student I imagine you are already aware of Thomas Khun’s study of the history of scientific paradigms, which show that when certain evidence do not match a prevailing scientific theory or model, most reject it as not possible and ignore it. It takes much time and perseverance against the flow for there to be enough evidence to break down the walls of that worldview and move to a better more inclusive model.
...It seems to me that the problem is not whether perception is fallible, influenced by several factors, and can be tricked, but that you have elevated it into an inviolable truth that perception can never right unless objectively provable and perception is not trainable, which is demonstrably false in multiple disciplines. You have elevated perception fallibility way beyond fallibility it to the level of absolute universal dogma. yes I am familiar with Philosophy of Science. However I already pointed out that I am not dogmatic about it. The problem is your theory has no evidence to support it whereas mine has lots. Present some evidence then there'll be something to discuss. You claim you're not dogmatic about it or an absolutist but your tone and body of posts on these subjects tend communicate a different truth. There have also been several logical responses to your logic and yet you do not acknowledge those or moderate your logical assertions.
Perhaps for you, scientific evidence is the primary reference for reality. You know that is not so for many of us, I have them as a contributing reference not the primary since human knowledge and tools are always incomplete. You require a specific type of evidence and seem unwilling to accept other because of your faith in the hopelessness of perception. So, I can't be bothered to go search out evidence that will satisfy you. I don't accept your terms of engagement nor your frame of reference as my standard for life or conversation about HiFi. If we can't meet on a mutual ground of logic then we will never have a real conversation.
|
|
|
|
Post by brucew268 on Dec 12, 2021 10:42:37 GMT
This is an interesting and short article referencing scientific studies on auditory perception. Much is about the tendency to couple associations of hearing with simultaneous tastes, sight, smell, ideas introduced as contaminants to trick the senses. All important to note.
A couple interesting comments with potential application the other direction:
“the presentation of a continuum of two contrastive speech sounds is expected to lead to binary parsing, but without communicative function, these sounds are perceived as single category.” [So lack of distnguishing different sounds when no communication is offered to alert them to look for contrasts.]
“Further, Gilbers et al. show that listeners with cochlear implants may have other biases than listeners with normal hearing. Whereas the first group is biased toward pitch range as the most important cue for emotional intonation, the latter is biased toward pitch contour as the most salient cue.” [Different groups listen differently.]
It did not include studies on whether perception can be trained to a higher degree and explorations of the experiences of such experts, including ability to filter past 'noise'. This would need to include both sceintific studies and examination of the effectiveness of common methods/procedures in those indsutries to filter out nose and contaminants to the perception process. Just a few examples without taking much effort: sommeliers, doctors reading X-rays, fragrance specialists, sound engineers, audiophiles, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 12, 2021 10:52:38 GMT
yes I am familiar with Philosophy of Science. However I already pointed out that I am not dogmatic about it. The problem is your theory has no evidence to support it whereas mine has lots. Present some evidence then there'll be something to discuss. You claim you're not dogmatic about it or an absolutist but your tone and body of posts on these subjects tend communicate a different truth. There have also been several logical responses to your logic and yet you do not acknowledge those or moderate your logical assertions.
Perhaps for you, scientific evidence is the primary reference for reality. You know that is not so for many of us, I have them as a contributing reference not the primary since human knowledge and tools are always incomplete. You require a specific type of evidence and seem unwilling to accept other because of your faith in the hopelessness of perception. So, I can't be bothered to go search out evidence that will satisfy you. I don't accept your terms of engagement nor your frame of reference as my standard for life or conversation about HiFi. If we can't meet on a mutual ground of logic then we will never have a real conversation.
Maybe you should point out what these 'logical responses' were as all I've seen is people reporting their own perceptions and thinking that's evidence that something unknown is happening. It isn't. A sceptical approach is the logical approach. if you are familiar with philosophy of science then you will know that science operates within paradigms. The current paradigm will prevail until weight of evidence demonstrates that it is unreliable, at which point there is a shift to a new paradigm. What I am saying regarding perception being flawed and DACs not having a 'foot tapping' quality is in line with the current paradigm. I am not saying that the current paradigm is set in stone however if you want to shift the paradigm then you need to present evidence that it is faulty. I am always interested to read people's subjective impressions and am always happy to present my own too. It's only when those subjective impressions are passed off as evidence of something that you'll see me dissenting. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 12, 2021 11:09:33 GMT
This is an interesting and short article referencing scientific studies on auditory perception. Much is about the tendency to couple associations of hearing with simultaneous tastes, sight, smell, ideas introduced as contaminants to trick the senses. All important to note.
A couple interesting comments with potential application the other direction:
“the presentation of a continuum of two contrastive speech sounds is expected to lead to binary parsing, but without communicative function, these sounds are perceived as single category.” [So lack of distnguishing different sounds when no communication is offered to alert them to look for contrasts.]
“Further, Gilbers et al. show that listeners with cochlear implants may have other biases than listeners with normal hearing. Whereas the first group is biased toward pitch range as the most important cue for emotional intonation, the latter is biased toward pitch contour as the most salient cue.” [Different groups listen differently.]
It did not include studies on whether perception can be trained to a higher degree and explorations of the experiences of such experts, including ability to filter past 'noise'. This would need to include both sceintific studies and examination of the effectiveness of common methods/procedures in those indsutries to filter out nose and contaminants to the perception process. Just a few examples without taking much effort: sommeliers, doctors reading X-rays, fragrance specialists, sound engineers, audiophiles, etc. Yes it is possible to train yourself to hear past noise, Sonar operators were trained this way so that they could detect submarines. Trained listeners are sometimes able to distinguish higher sampling rates by identifying artefacts below the noise floor. No argument from me that this is possible. Regrettably many seen to think that just listening critically to a lot of music makes them 'trained listeners' or 'experienced listeners' but that's demonstrably false. You need to do specific training, otherwise your not going to be better at it than anyone else. I would be very surprised if anyone posting here has done such training. Even then you are still not going to be able to hear things that don't exist in the first place. And all such tests require controls like double-blind or they will be invalid. That criteria also applies to all the professions/applications you listed above. |
|
|
|
Post by brucew268 on Dec 12, 2021 11:12:05 GMT
What I've noticed is that many components of a HiFi will tend to handle the frequency curve a little differently, one frequency de-emphasized and another frequency emphasized slightly, and often this does not come across as 'coloured' but identified as another effect on the music:
More rhythm, pace, and metre More organic and flowing More transparent, even (because certain HF subtly bring out a greater sense of detail) Better leading edge accuracy (sometimes confused with HF detail)
etc. In this way, a DAC,a cable, or a capacitor can be identified with the above even if not commonly thought to be related to that aspect of music production. A related observation is that effect on transients can effect the perception of the above. Further, the noise inherent or rejected in the power supply and circuit can have significant effects in these areas of perception as well. On a connected note, in the 90's I had a CD Transport that unaccountably had stronger and better bass than all other transports I auditioned over a few years. Why? I don't know exactly but years laster I read a review that spoke of it having a much beefier power supply than most transports and the better and rare/discontinued pro version of the popular philips laser. My point is that there are several things which can affect our perception of the above categories which do so from another direction than classically associated with that music reproduction quality. |
|
|
|
Post by brucew268 on Dec 12, 2021 11:35:02 GMT
Yes it is possible to train yourself to hear past noise, Sonar operators were trained this way so that they could detect submarines. Trained listeners are sometimes able to distinguish higher sampling rates by identifying artefacts below the noise floor. No argument from me that this is possible. Thank you for that. Regrettably many seen to think that just listening critically to a lot of music makes them 'trained listeners' or 'experienced listeners' but that's demonstrably false. Agreed that people who habitually listen critically can still can have their perceptions skewed by many contaminants either environmental (cable dressing, price or bling, different amount/quality of light in the room, etc.) or internal (an argument they just had, stressed about something, indigestion, etc.). I believe some of these can be compensated for or seen past and some not well. Some will just cause me to abandon a listening session on a certain day because I can see my perceptions being skewed.
You need to do specific training, otherwise your not going to be better at it than anyone else. I would be very surprised if anyone posting here has done such training. Can you prove that such training is necessary and that 'self-taught' is always ineffectual? That's a big statement to assert let alone prove. Even then you are still not going to be able to hear things that don't exist in the first place. And all such tests require controls like double-blind or they will be invalid. That criteria also applies to all the professions/applications you listed above. That's just bollocks given the industries/disciplines we've mentioned. Few if any of them use double blind to do their job. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 12, 2021 11:40:32 GMT
I don't disagree with any of that, what I am arguing is that there cannot be any difference that is not quantifiable. it may be obscure, it may be difficult to quantify, but there will be a reason for it that is not 'something unknown to science'. At least within the restricted realms of audio replay anyway.
if it can't be measured, or cannot easily be measured, then a controlled listening test will reveal if there is any substance to the claim of 'I can hear it.'
if it can't be measured and the person claiming to hear it can't relaibly identify it in a controlled listening test then by far the most likely explanation is that there is nothing happening and that the perceived effect is due to perceptual bias.
I really don't understand why so many people seem to think this is an unreasonable position to take. Dunning-Kruger effect maybe?
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 12, 2021 11:49:01 GMT
Yes it is possible to train yourself to hear past noise, Sonar operators were trained this way so that they could detect submarines. Trained listeners are sometimes able to distinguish higher sampling rates by identifying artefacts below the noise floor. No argument from me that this is possible. Thank you for that. Regrettably many seen to think that just listening critically to a lot of music makes them 'trained listeners' or 'experienced listeners' but that's demonstrably false. Agreed that people who habitually listen critically can still can have their perceptions skewed by many contaminants either environmental (cable dressing, price or bling, different amount/quality of light in the room, etc.) or internal (an argument they just had, stressed about something, indigestion, etc.). I believe some of these can be compensated for or seen past and some not well. Some will just cause me to abandon a listening session on a certain day because I can see my perceptions being skewed.
You need to do specific training, otherwise your not going to be better at it than anyone else. I would be very surprised if anyone posting here has done such training. Can you prove that such training is necessary and that 'self-taught' is always ineffectual? That's a big statement to assert let alone prove. Even then you are still not going to be able to hear things that don't exist in the first place. And all such tests require controls like double-blind or they will be invalid. That criteria also applies to all the professions/applications you listed above. That's just bollocks given the industries/disciplines we've mentioned. Few if any of them use double blind to do their job. Their testing will be double blind though. In the case of trained listening that is tested blind. Also with the Sonar operators, they were tested in controlled conditions to make sure that they really could detect submarines and were not just saying they could. I don't know about the perfume industry but I suspect they also use such testing. And we all know that all medical research is done with controls in place to prevent expectation bias, placebo effect etc since it is universally accepted that these things will skew the results. Can I prove such training is necessary? It is already proven. Try discriminating between 16/44.1 and 24/96 in a blind test without doing the training first. You'll fail every time. |
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Dec 12, 2021 11:49:02 GMT
We can measure the sound that enters our ears Macca, but not how the brain perceives it.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 12, 2021 11:56:10 GMT
We can measure the sound that enters our ears Macca, but not how the brain perceives it. yes I agree but what's your point? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2021 12:01:17 GMT
Another interesting thing about HiFi is super tweeters. They operate above our hearing range, but people claim they add to the sound stage.
You can measure them, but you can’t hear them. Why do they (apparently) make listening to music more enjoyable?
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 12, 2021 12:08:03 GMT
Another interesting thing about HiFi is super tweeters. They operate above our hearing range, but people claim they add to the sound stage. You can measure them, but you can’t hear them. Why do they (apparently) make listening to music more enjoyable? crossover slope. They are going to be producing some output within the audible range. if they really only kicked in at 20Khz and above you won't hear them same as you won't hear a dog whistle. |
|
|
|
Post by misterc on Dec 12, 2021 12:26:03 GMT
I just enjoy skating around the cauldron of thoughts and boiling away the inconsistencies until either explainable or un explainable are left. Martin, my first business partner Paul, holds a Ph.D. in Astrophysics (Like Jerry) also well a just a masters in basic physics a more analytical person you could not meet. He started as a customer back in 2002 before joining the company in 2006, his mind was quite something, however he never dismissed ANYTHING and always accepted that possibilities beyond first principles and ideals were and are possible. However to express that he was just accepting differences because they were there forget he would delve into every possible conceivable avenue before deciding this would require further investigation or a ‘nah that’s bollox’ tag His words would be somewhat more academic like “one has explored all of the relevant variables associated with these particular results and have found non sustainable evidence that would support the results which we are experiencing’ Personally, I feel “Nah its bollox” save on oxygen lol Some anecdotal items for you, I work with three sperate companies outside of audio, one is run by three ex Cambridge Ph.D chaps, all different engineering disciplines and all under 32! About a year we had a meeting about discussing the possibly of ourselves producing some design for them, they came along and spent the afternoon with us. Now while I am not residing at Paul or Jerry’s level of academics. I do hold two engineer degrees one in mechanical the other in EE. So consider myself competent Martin.
Before the left (both of these chaps are utterly normal in that they are not interested in audio one jot, at best a Roberts radio) so one of the projects we were discussing was power supplies, particularly those that could cope with 4 Kelvin. While they were tinkering in the lab, I swapped out a good power supply on the Mutec twin stack for a once of our QP versions. About 20 minutes they returned for a cup of coffee and sat down, the first thing that M1 (its weird all three chaps are called Michael!) said you have changed something in the system it much more ‘cleaner’ was his words. There then followed a debate until 8pm over what/why/how etc.
Bear in mind these guys where not pitched on anything what so ever and have zero interest in audio. The upshot is we now produce many different modules for these guys and one fo them assists with the higher speed digital designs, FPGA programming and layouts although they found that TDR (which none of them had experienced to any great degree just basically touched on during their last 18 months of the degree).
There is a fine balance between having an IQ of 162 and understanding the day to day physical possibilities of what is REALLY able to be constructed and measured. We have had many debates, some of which goes way over my head but I am learning, but there is a lot that Uni doesn’t prepare you for and that’s when the fun starts when you leave. What is interesting though, these guys call me at least a couple of times a week for advice on various matters relating to cicruit layouts, dc noise rail reduction techniques in specific areas of areospace as well as other items. Not becuase they are not capable of crunching the numbers and building prototypes, they understand that others my have more experinace in these areas and co-operation is a great thing! Which is good because the flow of information is both ways and they appreciate the input for their particular projects. The balance is ultimate knowledge inconjunction with good old fashioned experinace and ther ability to appreciate each other corners so to speak
|
|
optical
Moderator
BIG STAR
Be Excellent To Eachother
Posts: 1,623 
Member is Online
|
Post by optical on Dec 12, 2021 12:45:06 GMT
Another interesting thing about HiFi is super tweeters. They operate above our hearing range, but people claim they add to the sound stage. You can measure them, but you can’t hear them. Why do they (apparently) make listening to music more enjoyable? Because they interact with the frequencies you can hear, that's my best guess and a theory I've put forward before. Also different senses '(touch/feel) for example can perceive tiny changes in the state of environment Even if they are inaudible |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 12, 2021 12:50:13 GMT
I just enjoy skating around the cauldron of thoughts and boiling away the inconsistencies until either explainable or un explainable are left. Martin, my first business partner Paul, holds a Ph.D. in Astrophysics (Like Jerry) also well a just a masters in basic physics a more analytical person you could not meet. He started as a customer back in 2002 before joining the company in 2006, his mind was quite something, however he never dismissed ANYTHING and always accepted that possibilities beyond first principles and ideals were and are possible. However to express that he was just accepting differences because they were there forget he would delve into every possible conceivable avenue before deciding this would require further investigation or a ‘nah that’s bollox’ tag His words would be somewhat more academic like “one has explored all of the relevant variables associated with these particular results and have found non sustainable evidence that would support the results which we are experiencing’ Personally, I feel “Nah its bollox” save on oxygen lol Some anecdotal items for you, I work with three sperate companies outside of audio, one is run by three ex Cambridge Ph.D chaps, all different engineering disciplines and all under 32! About a year we had a meeting about discussing the possibly of ourselves producing some design for them, they came along and spent the afternoon with us. Now while I am not residing at Paul or Jerry’s level of academics. I do hold two engineer degrees one in mechanical the other in EE. So consider myself competent Martin.
Before the left (both of these chaps are utterly normal in that they are not interested in audio one jot, at best a Roberts radio) so one of the projects we were discussing was power supplies, particularly those that could cope with 4 Kelvin. While they were tinkering in the lab, I swapped out a good power supply on the Mutec twin stack for a once of our QP versions. About 20 minutes they returned for a cup of coffee and sat down, the first thing that M1 (its weird all three chaps are called Michael!) said you have changed something in the system it much more ‘cleaner’ was his words. There then followed a debate until 8pm over what/why/how etc.
Bear in mind these guys where not pitched on anything what so ever and have zero interest in audio. The upshot is we now product many different modules for these guys and one fo them assists with the higher speed digital designs, FPGA programming and layouts although they found that TDA (which none of them had experienced to any great degree just basically touched on during their last 18 months of the degree).
There is a fine balance between having an IQ of 162 and understanding the day to day physical possibilities of what is REALLY able to be constructed and measured. We have had many debates, some of which goes way over my head but I am learning, but there is a lot that Uni doesn’t prepare you for and that’s when the fun starts when you leave. What is interesting though, these guys call me at least a couple of times a week for advice on various matters relating to cicruit layouts, dc noise rail reudction techniques in specific areas of areospace as well as other items. Which is good because the flow of information is both ways and they appreciate the input for their particular projects. The balance is ultimate knowledge inconjunction with good old fashioned experinace
Hi Tony yes I know what you mean (anecdotes aside as we all have them and they're generally not helpful). I mentioned a friend who has many degrees and higher degrees, in physics, maths, chemistry, biology, psychology. He also favours the 'Nah it's bollocks' reply. he was part of the reason I started learning since I wanted to show him he was wrong. Problem was the more I learned the more i came to realise that he's almost certainly right. I think part of the problem with these debates is that some people tend to cling to their pre-conceived notions and dismiss the contrary evidence. Whereas those with academic backgrounds tend to take a different approach by instead asking 'What is the truth here?' and then examining the evidence on both sides before establishing their position. Plus some/many consider their own perceptions to be evidence. Which is understandable since that's intuitive in all of us. To date the evidence is insufficient for me to go with the 'the currently established science is wrong' point of view. But I have no dog in the race and when new evidence is presented I will always review my position. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 12, 2021 12:59:16 GMT
Another interesting thing about HiFi is super tweeters. They operate above our hearing range, but people claim they add to the sound stage. You can measure them, but you can’t hear them. Why do they (apparently) make listening to music more enjoyable? Because they interact with the frequencies you can hear, that's my best guess and a theory I've put forward before. Also different senses '(touch/feel) for example can perceive tiny changes in the state of environment Even if they are inaudible I think that if that was the case them the result would be intermodulation distortion which would never be mistaken for an improvement blog.soton.ac.uk/soundwaves/hearing-sounds/5-sum-and-difference-tones/ |
|
optical
Moderator
BIG STAR
Be Excellent To Eachother
Posts: 1,623
Member is Online
|
Post by optical on Dec 12, 2021 13:02:51 GMT
Because they interact with the frequencies you can hear, that's my best guess and a theory I've put forward before. Also different senses '(touch/feel) for example can perceive tiny changes in the state of environment Even if they are inaudible I think that if that was the case them the result would be intermodulation distortion which would never be mistaken for an improvement blog.soton.ac.uk/soundwaves/hearing-sounds/5-sum-and-difference-tones/Why? Harmonic distortion can be very audibly pleasant It may serve to highlight certain nuances of the audible spectrum, whether it's better or worse can be personal preference |
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,398
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Dec 12, 2021 13:35:34 GMT
Gentleman,
I'm just going to point out that yet again, another thread has descended into another bore-fest of arguing about measurements.
As I mentioned the other day, it's boring the bollocks off me, so I'm going to tidy this thread up and kindly remind all that if you want to discuss/contemplate/argue/ about measurements, either start a thread elsewhere on the forum, or preferably take the option of accepting that folk hear what they hear and that's what matters.
I am entire encouraging of having a separate thread on such matters.
|
|
|
|
Post by misterc on Dec 12, 2021 13:55:30 GMT
Martin I do not feel that the established understanding is incorrect in the way we phyiscal layer test, but more over in what are the relevent tests that would indicate what product 'x' sounds different from product 'y'.
Paul would never ignore anecdotal evidence, although he would not give it the credence as graphs and measurments UNTIL he had invetsigating. He thoughts were this, if enough totally independant observations were made and similar finidngs were reported he felt it wouldwarrant further investigation.
You mentioned linearity test for dac's, I suggested for the latets crop of r2r dsp controlled dacs they are quite significant differenices especially between the 44.1 and 48Khz smaple derivities, now whether this is due to these dacs have sperate ladders for each set of sample frequencies or switching in of multipule ladders, dsp is used the even out the freqency responses.
Below the Musicain Pegasus dac 48Khz linearity plot @ 48Kz, the second image is indentical setting of the Rhode & Schwartz UPV but this time @ 44.1Khz, you can cleary see the DSP at work there.
Last Image is of one of the stock Wadia 15's from 1994 linearity curve is very respecable indeed, which one sounds better based on thoose graps, the Pegasus has around another 10dBm lower noise floor, so you would expect graeter micro dynamics and a darker background to the music. the figures are 116s/n for the wadia dn 127s/n for the Pegasus. Listening delivers a totally different story. One has much more utterly definable ryhtymic drive and natural pace, the other is quite flat and linear with a much more resevered and laid back sound.
For clarfication tese readings were taken in Phase linear mode NOT non oversampling mode, which to be fair only the Soekris has as the Pegasus is absolutely (and many others including the Denifrips/Rockna) not a true NOS mode, the Holo audio products are a real NOS mode but the linearity plots are even more diverse when in that setting.
Pegasus 48Khz linearity plot
Pegasus 44.1Khz linearity plot
Wadia 15 linearity plot 44.1Khz
Lastly the Soekris 2541 linearity plot 44.1Khz
Pretty sure you can find plenty more of the plots on Golden Sound and asr Martin
|
|
