does quality of digital audio cable matter much?
aaaa
to connect to other components such as receivers. Does the quality of
the cable matter much?
I can see that the quality of analog audio cable matter. But it is not clear
to me why the quality of digital audio cable matter. They are just passing
bits (or bytes) of data, and a wide range of analog value is used to
represent a single bit, say, an analog signal in the range of -5V to 5V is
used to represent bit of 0 and 1 and something say 5+-3V (from 2V to 8V) is still recognized
as 1. So some loss in signal quality is not too much a problem.
If there are errors in data transmission of a single bit, the data can be
changed signicantly, say a byte of 10000000 is quite different from a byte
of 00000000. So such errors can lead to great problems. Will this kind of
case happen with low quality cable?
With data transmission, normally a checksum is used to check if there are
errors in data transmission, if there are, the data will be retransmitted.
Will this happen with digital cable?
So why do people think that the quality of digital cable matter much, why
is the optical cable better than the coaxial one?
Thanks.
John Kotches
>
> Components such as DVD player use digital audio cable (optical or coaxial)
> to connect to other components such as receivers. Does the quality of
> the cable matter much?
This is going to be a long and sometimes nasty debate you're starting up
(again).
>
> I can see that the quality of analog audio cable matter. But it is not clear
> to me why the quality of digital audio cable matter. They are just passing
> bits (or bytes) of data, and a wide range of analog value is used to
> represent a single bit, say, an analog signal in the range of -5V to 5V is
> used to represent bit of 0 and 1 and something say 5+-3V (from 2V to 8V) is still recognized
> as 1. So some loss in signal quality is not too much a problem.
>
> If there are errors in data transmission of a single bit, the data can be
> changed signicantly, say a byte of 10000000 is quite different from a byte
> of 00000000. So such errors can lead to great problems. Will this kind of
> case happen with low quality cable?
>
> With data transmission, normally a checksum is used to check if there are
> errors in data transmission, if there are, the data will be retransmitted.
> Will this happen with digital cable?
Nope. The error correction code is Cross-Interleave Reed-Solomon.
CD Audio and DVD are simplex constructed, that is to say the source
(upstream) component transmits, the destination (downstream) component
receives. This isn't an RS-232 connection or a network :-)
Digital Audio (and video) decoding is a one-shot deal during playback --
you get an unaltered sample or one that error correction has to deal
with.
For that matter, so is the encoding process.
> So why do people think that the quality of digital cable matter much, why
> is the optical cable better than the coaxial one?
Most optical cables are made of plastic (ie TOSLink). Go check the
construction
of your typical FDDI, 100-base FX, Gigabit Ethernet or FC-AL cable and
tell
me what it's constructed of. It isn't plastic, it's glass.
Most all audiophiles will tell you that the Coaxial sounds better. It
could
be an issue of the optical/electrical transducer introducing noise into
the
bitstream.
This debate will rage on for some time.
Anyway, I hope this helps.
> Thanks.
--
************************************************************
* A goofy Unix SA working for a large computer equipment *
* manufacturer and services provider. Opinions expressed *
* are mine and not my employers. jkotches@_pobox_.com *
************************************************************
ShLampen
(aaaa) writes:
>I can see that the quality of analog audio cable matter. But it is not clear
>to me why the quality of digital audio cable matter.
The analog cable handles a frequency range of 20 Hz to 20 kHz.
The digital cable bandwidth is a bellcurve to 3.072 MHz (48 kHz sampling) or
6.144 MHz (96 kHz sampling),
Therefore, the bandwidth of digital is at least 150 times higher than analog.
This means that capacitance is more important since square waves (i.e. data)
are harder to reproduce than sine waves (i.e. analog audio). Impedance, a
non-issue at analog, is now important. Quarter wavelength at 6.144 MHz is 12.2m
(40 ft.) time velocity (generally around 70%) = 28 ft. This distance is well
within consideration.
Therefore, you must be reasonably close to the correct impedance (110 ohms,
twisted pair, 75 ohms, coax.)
Steve Lampen
Multimedia Technology Specialist
Belden Wire & Cable Co.
San Francisco
www.belden.com
Powell
aaaa <ch...@sys.toronto.edu> wrote:
> So why do people think that the quality of digital cable
>matter much, why is the optical cable better than the
>coaxial one?
>
>
There are a number of technical issues involved in deciding
what digital cables are *best*... including the equipment it's
attached to. Based on empirical results I would rate digital
cables as follows. Overall AT&T (ST) is *best* with coaxial
and XLR very close 2nd and noticeably below that is toslink
(plastic).
aaaa
>be an issue of the optical/electrical transducer introducing noise into
>the
>bitstream.
I still don't quite understand this. 1st, the signal has to be significantly
altered in order to alter the bit. as I mentioed, a signal in the range of
2-8 V is still received as bit 1 just as a signal of 5V. 2nd, if a bit is
modified, the resulting signal (the analog one converted from the digital) could be significantly different from the
original one, why would one just hear some minor differences? THanks.
Ron Cole
Because Home systems are Unbalanced you are at a disadvantage,
the advantage is that the Output circuits of the systems are LOW
impeadance and the Input of the Systems are High Impeadance Power
matching is not a problem. So the Capacitive loading of the abeling
systems are not a problem.
Now in a Digital or Video Transfer system the Send and Receiver
systems have a Speciffic Tramssion Impeadnace, 110 Ohms for Digital
amd 75 Ohms for Video. The advantage of Digital is that thought the
Cabeling will Round off the Digital signals, if the system syncs and
recovers tha data you a 100% OK. Now that makes for an intersting
problem, we call the Cliff edge syndrom. Digital works 100% until you
reach the edge then it just quits and you don't know way.
Back when converting to Digital in the TV Station we found that the
"Cheep " connectors we used to save money 10-20 years ago were 50ohm
connectors, used on 75ohm cable. Not a problem for Analog Video for
a Killer in Digital. The cables that should work on Digital would
not, thought all we needed to do was cut off the old connections and
install new 75ohm connections.
Oh and don't get succkered into useing Expensive Gold Connectors, they
don't help. We used some of those on some audio equipment and cut
them off and replaced the with Switchcraft which solved the
intermintant connection problems. We had ot "Twist:" the connectors
to clean the connection about every 2 months. Not that we went to the
Cheepere regualr connectors we have not had a problem in years.
Ron
Ron Cole
Electricity. For home systems it's makes 0 (ZEORO) differance one is
as good as the other. Optical will win in a Distance contest, but who
needs hundereds of feet of cable between components.
Ron
Rob
I opted for "optical" because my Sony receiver only has one coaxial input
and 3 optical, so I wanted to leave the coax free.
The big issue, according to some, has nothing to do with data getting from
the player to the receiver, but "jitter" -- data that's timeshifted due to
transmission errors.
I tend to highly disagree with these statements, though. They just don't
hold their water. Dolby Digital is a *compressed* audio bitstream. As you
may have seen from using MP3 (or visually, with DVD video), if there are
*any* dropped or shifted bits in the bitstream, a large chunk of data will
be noticeably garbled due to decompression failure. So, especially with
Dolby Digital, the digital connection is pretty much an all-or-nothing
affair. If it's working, it can't really be improved upon or
"subconsciously" degraded.
aaaa <ch...@sys.toronto.edu> wrote in message
news:1999Jul4.2...@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu...
Tomi Holger Engdahl
> > With data transmission, normally a checksum is used to check if there are
> > errors in data transmission, if there are, the data will be retransmitted.
> > Will this happen with digital cable?
Digital audio transmission on cables using S/PDIF or AES/EBU system
uses only checksum to check that the data is transmitted correctly.
If the data is not received correctly, the receiving equipment will
inform user that there is somethign wring with the connection. Because
the data transmission goes only to one direction (from source to
destination), retransmissions are not used.
> Nope. The error correction code is Cross-Interleave Reed-Solomon.
This is the error correction code used in CD audio disks.
The digital interface (S/PDIF) does not use anythign more complex than
just simple checksum.
> CD Audio and DVD are simplex constructed, that is to say the source
> (upstream) component transmits, the destination (downstream) component
> receives. This isn't an RS-232 connection or a network :-)
This is true.
> Digital Audio (and video) decoding is a one-shot deal during playback --
> you get an unaltered sample or one that error correction has to deal
> with. For that matter, so is the encoding process.
True.
---
Tomi Engdahl (http://www.iki.fi/then/)
Take a look at my electronics web pages at http://www.hut.fi/Misc/Electronics/
Powell
Ron Cole <rdc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Optical vs Copper. Has more to do with the transmission system vs.
> Electricity.
>
>For home systems it's makes 0 (ZEORO) differance one is
> as good as the other.
>
Hehehe... right, but only in your system is that true.
> Optical will win in a Distance contest, but who
> needs hundereds of feet of cable between components.
>
Quack-quack-quack.
Jim Howard
aaaa wrote in message <1999Jul4.1...@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu>...
>Components such as DVD player use digital audio cable (optical or coaxial)
>to connect to other components such as receivers. Does the quality of
>the cable matter much?
I have always thought that as long as you have decent sized and shielded
wire and well constructed connectors that no human could possibly tell the
difference between any set of audio cables. I think that for analog
signals, and it goes quadruple for digital signals.
I look for good physical construction, but don't pay for ridiculous
marketing lies and packaging. For speaker wires I am sure nothing can beat
generic stranded copper wire, sized according to system power output.
I'd bet a SPR DVD that in a true double blind experiment that there would be
no statistically significant difference in perceived sound quality between
system that differ only in "name brand" v. "generic" cables.
Has consumer union or any similar neutral body done real double blind tests
on audio cables?
Jim Howard
Barry Mann
>aaaa wrote in message <1999Jul4.1...@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu>...
>>Components such as DVD player use digital audio cable (optical or coaxial)
>>to connect to other components such as receivers. Does the quality of
>>the cable matter much?
>I have always thought that as long as you have decent sized and shielded
>wire and well constructed connectors that no human could possibly tell
>the difference between any set of audio cables. I think that for analog
>signals, and it goes quadruple for digital signals.
>I look for good physical construction, but don't pay for ridiculous
>marketing lies and packaging. For speaker wires I am sure nothing can
>beat generic stranded copper wire, sized according to system power
>output.
>I'd bet a SPR DVD that in a true double blind experiment that there would
>be no statistically significant difference in perceived sound quality
>between system that differ only in "name brand" v. "generic" cables.
Be careful, some listeners in some situations might win that bet.
>Has consumer union or any similar neutral body done real double blind
>tests on audio cables?
I'm not sure how "neutral" these bodies can be. In my opinion, Consumer
Union is far from neutral because they always test in a fairly narrow
price range. One of their editorial reasons for being is that the educated
consumer making an informed purchase can buy better for less. Their choice
of products to review is highly dependent on what they think their readers
will want to pay for a product. I've seen them ignore some significantly
superior products that, in my opinion, would have been a much better long
term investment than any of the reviewed products only because the cost
was over the limit by a few percent.
Other publications seem to ignore products that cost less than a certain
amount.
In the "formal" audio testing that I've seen, the participants go into the
test with some sort of axe to grind and their experiment "proves" their
point (after all, the effect they were demonstrating was so obvious, no
controls should be necessary if the listener has any ability at all), but
everyone else finds flaws in their methods.
For example, phono cartridges are very sensitive to temperature
variations, yet I've rarely seen reviewers report the temperature of the
environment where they listened. In a few cases I saw a temperature
reported when they measured the cartridge. If the reviewer really wanted
to provide a service to readers, the cartridge would be reviewed over a
carefully controlled range of temperatures.
Most experimenters want to use an ABX box to run their experiment. While
this may be good experimental design, it has bothered me that they always
claim (without proof) the ABX box is "neutral". Perhaps, but my experience
has been that they are not neutral (but you won't like my methods for
making that determination). I only ask -- If the ABX box is truly neutral,
why is the ABX box the only "neutral" device? Why can't we use that
technology to make other "neutral" boxes.
A large number of people claim to be able to hear differences in cables,
Some have an obvious axe to grind and should be suspect, but most don't.
Yet, when subjected to he rigors of the ABX, no differences are found. The
obvious conclusion is that the test subjects were deluded in thinking that
a difference in cable sound exists. The not so obvious (and much harder to
prove) conclusion, is that the ABX box masks the differences.
There's still a lot to learn about how we hear. Until we have a better
understanding of the process, there will be surprises and contradictions.
-----------------------------------------------------------
nite...@voicenet.com (Barry Mann)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Slim Middius
> Most experimenters want to use an ABX box to run their experiment. While
> this may be good experimental design, it has bothered me that they always
> claim (without proof) the ABX box is "neutral". Perhaps, but my experience
> has been that they are not neutral (but you won't like my methods for
> making that determination).
I would like to hear more about this. How have you determined this?
> I only ask -- If the ABX box is truly neutral,
> why is the ABX box the only "neutral" device? Why can't we use that
> technology to make other "neutral" boxes.
You state ABX boxes aren't neutral, offer no data on how you arrived at this
conclusion, then proceed as if it's a given there are no other neutral devices.
What are the data you used to determine an ABX box is not transparent?
Until I see how you determined they aren't, I'll leave this alone.
> There's still a lot to learn about how we hear. Until we have a better
> understanding of the process, there will be surprises and contradictions.
How much more about electronics do we need to understand? Do you also have data
suggesting there are other variables to electricity we aren't measuring?
Gene Steinberg
nite...@voicenet.com (Barry Mann) wrote:
>Most experimenters want to use an ABX box to run their experiment. While
>this may be good experimental design, it has bothered me that they always
>claim (without proof) the ABX box is "neutral". Perhaps, but my experience
>has been that they are not neutral (but you won't like my methods for
>making that determination). I only ask -- If the ABX box is truly neutral,
>why is the ABX box the only "neutral" device? Why can't we use that
>technology to make other "neutral" boxes.
Well, as a matter of fact the box has been tested and shown to be
sonically transparent. Before you continue to make up stories or speculate
without foundation, try reading up on the subject first.
>
>A large number of people claim to be able to hear differences in cables,
>Some have an obvious axe to grind and should be suspect, but most don't.
>Yet, when subjected to he rigors of the ABX, no differences are found. The
>obvious conclusion is that the test subjects were deluded in thinking that
>a difference in cable sound exists. The not so obvious (and much harder to
>prove) conclusion, is that the ABX box masks the differences.
There is no evidence for such a conclusion, not at all. In fact, double
blind tests without the ABX box show the same results.
>
>There's still a lot to learn about how we hear. Until we have a better
>understanding of the process, there will be surprises and contradictions.
>
We understand quite a bit. Problem is you don't seem to have done much to
read the literature on the subject.
May I suggest you begin with a visit to the ABX Web site at this URL:
http://www.oakland.edu/~djcarlst/abx.htm.
There you'll find lots of information and references about tests. Once
you've done the research, come back and ask the questions.
dave weil
Slim Middius wrote:
> Barry Mann wrote:
>
> > Most experimenters want to use an ABX box to run their experiment. While
> > this may be good experimental design, it has bothered me that they always
> > claim (without proof) the ABX box is "neutral". Perhaps, but my experience
> > has been that they are not neutral (but you won't like my methods for
> > making that determination).
>
> I would like to hear more about this. How have you determined this?
>
> > I only ask -- If the ABX box is truly neutral,
> > why is the ABX box the only "neutral" device? Why can't we use that
> > technology to make other "neutral" boxes.
>
> You state ABX boxes aren't neutral, offer no data on how you arrived at this
> conclusion, then proceed as if it's a given there are no other neutral devices.
> What are the data you used to determine an ABX box is not transparent?
>
> Until I see how you determined they aren't, I'll leave this alone.
>
> > There's still a lot to learn about how we hear. Until we have a better
> > understanding of the process, there will be surprises and contradictions.
>
> How much more about electronics do we need to understand? Do you also have data
> suggesting there are other variables to electricity we aren't measuring?
If electronics was the only factor then you'd be right. But you're leaving out the
most important link in the chain, the brain. How much do we *really* know about
how it processes data? Did you know that they're testing the hypothesis that left
brained people hear differently than right brained? Actually put the data together
differently? I participated in a student test (Belmont College) of just that
hypothesis. I wasn't informed about the results (and it doesn't really matter to
me.) I was given a series of tones in each ear. They were structured in different
ways - in various series. They were times differently in each ear. Sometimes they
were ascending in one and descending in the other. Sometimes they coincided.
sometimes they were in opposition. I was to tell the tester what I heard, whether
I heard chords or series of tones during each sequence. Apparently left brained
people hear something completely different than right brained people (one hears
chords and the other hears series or something along that line.) Perhaps some
enterprising person could find out more about these series of studies (the students
at Belmont were just following up on a larger study at a larger school.)
So, until you can absolutely tell me why I see water in the desert, or see a pencil
bend when loosely tossed between two fingers, or construct a stereo image from 4
separate points (or even two) or not hear ticks and pops after a while on a record,
then maybe we can talk about knowing everything there is about the science of audio
reproduction.
Alan Dana
<jn...@REMOVE.jump.net> wrote:
> aaaa wrote in message <1999Jul4.1...@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu>...
> >Components such as DVD player use digital audio cable (optical or coaxial)
> >to connect to other components such as receivers. Does the quality of
> >the cable matter much?
> I'd bet a SPR DVD that in a true double blind experiment that there would be
> no statistically significant difference in perceived sound quality between
> system that differ only in "name brand" v. "generic" cables.
I'll try to address the question at hand, which is digital interconnects.
I haven't compared optical cables, as my primary system (and other systems
that I've used) doesn't have optical connections. However I have
conducted several blind comparisons of coaxial and XLR digital cables,
in a variety of high quality stereo systems costing up to around $30K.
I've compared cables ranging from $15 "video" cables up to $500+
Illuminati digital cables, and including two rather expensive digital
cables of my own: A Madrigal $250 XLR cable and a Audix Reference $275-
$300 coax. A total of 10-11 people participated in these comparisons,
this included a couple of very serious audiophiles and 3 audio store
salesmen.
The results were that no one was able to detect even the slightest
difference in digital cables. In other blind tests, I've had some
positive results, and some cases where people failed to reliably
identify the components but went away swearing they heard a difference
but were unable to put their finger on it.
This was not the case on digital cables. Every participant admitted
that they were reduced to random guessing. When I used noiseless,
immediate switches, not a single person was able to discern when I
flipped the switch to a different cable.
I still own the two expensive cables mentioned above, however my system
sounds exactly the same using two $15 AudioQuest Video One cables as
it does when I use the $550 worth of cables. I paid a total of $160 for
these cables (both were used but in mint condition), and I'm willing to
admit that I was duped.
Some will claim that one needs a "high resolution system" to hear
these differences. But I've used them in systems with gear from
Mark Levinson, Audio Research, Krell, B&W, Sonic Frontiers,
Von Schweikert, Theta, Thiel, and Dynaudio and none of these
have revealed any differences between digital interconnects.
Dana
Stewart Pinkerton
> Most experimenters want to use an ABX box to run their experiment. While
> this may be good experimental design, it has bothered me that they always
> claim (without proof) the ABX box is "neutral".
Actually, there's been quite a lot of work done to prove the
neutrality of the original ABX box, I believe it's on Arny's web site
somewhere.
> Perhaps, but my experience
> has been that they are not neutral (but you won't like my methods for
> making that determination).
Is this perchance a claim without proof? :-)
> I only ask -- If the ABX box is truly neutral,
> why is the ABX box the only "neutral" device? Why can't we use that
> technology to make other "neutral" boxes.
Who says we can't? I have a passive controller which is as neutral as
anything I've ever heard, and being relay switched it could easily be
rigged as a full computer-controlled ABX system.
I have also used a level-matching switch box for ABX purposes which is
indistinguishable from a bypass cable in a simple substitution ABX
comparison.
>A large number of people claim to be able to hear differences in cables,
>Some have an obvious axe to grind and should be suspect, but most don't.
>Yet, when subjected to he rigors of the ABX, no differences are found. The
>obvious conclusion is that the test subjects were deluded in thinking that
>a difference in cable sound exists. The not so obvious (and much harder to
>prove) conclusion, is that the ABX box masks the differences.
For interconnects, you don't need an ABX box to do full ABX protocol
testing, just a 3-way splitter and a preamp with three identical line
inputs. The first is trivially easy to make, and the second is almost
universal. The results are the same - all decently made interconnects
sound alike.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Stewart Pinkerton
>So, until you can absolutely tell me why I see water in the desert
Temperature inversion layer reflection/refraction
> or see a pencil
>bend when loosely tossed between two fingers
Neuro-optical persistence
> or construct a stereo image from 4
>separate points (or even two)
HRTF
> or not hear ticks and pops after a while on a record,
Selective masking by the brain
>then maybe we can talk about knowing everything there is about the science of audio
>reproduction.
Ah, now that's a bit trickier..............>
Slim Middius
> Slim Middius wrote:
>
> > Barry Mann wrote:
> >
> > > Most experimenters want to use an ABX box to run their experiment. While
> > > this may be good experimental design, it has bothered me that they always
> > > claim (without proof) the ABX box is "neutral". Perhaps, but my experience
> > > has been that they are not neutral (but you won't like my methods for
> > > making that determination).
> >
> > I would like to hear more about this. How have you determined this?
> >
> > > I only ask -- If the ABX box is truly neutral,
> > > why is the ABX box the only "neutral" device? Why can't we use that
> > > technology to make other "neutral" boxes.
> >
> > You state ABX boxes aren't neutral, offer no data on how you arrived at this
> > conclusion, then proceed as if it's a given there are no other neutral devices.
> > What are the data you used to determine an ABX box is not transparent?
> >
> > Until I see how you determined they aren't, I'll leave this alone.
> >
> > > There's still a lot to learn about how we hear. Until we have a better
> > > understanding of the process, there will be surprises and contradictions.
> >
> > How much more about electronics do we need to understand? Do you also have data
> > suggesting there are other variables to electricity we aren't measuring?
>
> If electronics was the only factor then you'd be right. But you're leaving out the
> most important link in the chain, the brain. How much do we *really* know about
> how it processes data?
I won't disagree, Dave, but the issue was whether or not a specific piece of electronic
equipment is masking audio differences. My post was aimed at discovering WHY this
poster felt he had proven it, rather than just making an unfounded assertion. If we're
not measuring some electrical property, I'd be interested in hearing what its
characteristics are, and why it is only apparent during sighted listening.
> <snip>
>
> So, until you can absolutely tell me why I see water in the desert, or see a pencil
> bend when loosely tossed between two fingers, or construct a stereo image from 4
> separate points (or even two) or not hear ticks and pops after a while on a record,
> then maybe we can talk about knowing everything there is about the science of audio
> reproduction.
Perception is certainly an issue, no argument here. But we also need to consider if it
is car windshields or eyeglasses that cause you to see optical illusions, or if it is
your brain, don't you agree?
If the electronic or electrical equipment is what causes you to hear illusions, that is
one thing; if the equipment is transparent and it is your brain that hears illusions,
that is another. Let's just keep the discussion on which is which.
dave weil
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> >So, until you can absolutely tell me why I see water in the desert
>
> Temperature inversion layer reflection/refraction
Why doesn't the brain correct for this as it does with many other optical situations?
>
>
> > or see a pencil
> >bend when loosely tossed between two fingers
>
> Neuro-optical persistence
Why does this particular neuro-optical persistence occur in the first place? After all,
the brain compensates for moving objects all the time...
> > or construct a stereo image from 4
> >separate points (or even two)
>
> HRTF
So why are some people able to localize sound better than others? Why can you still
tell the difference between live sounds and canned sounds in another room? Why are you
fooled sometimes into "thinking" that you're listening to a stereo image (try and fool
your friends, or yourself, sometimes by playing a high quality mono source sometime.)
> > or not hear ticks and pops after a while on a record,
>
> Selective masking by the brain
Aha...now the brain is playing tricks on us. Who knows how else the brain "selectively"
processes data in order for us to make sense of it?
> >then maybe we can talk about knowing everything there is about the science of audio
> >reproduction.
>
> Ah, now that's a bit trickier..............>
Indeed it is...
dave weil
Slim Middius wrote:
> > So, until you can absolutely tell me why I see water in the desert, or see a pencil
> > bend when loosely tossed between two fingers, or construct a stereo image from 4
> > separate points (or even two) or not hear ticks and pops after a while on a record,
> > then maybe we can talk about knowing everything there is about the science of audio
> > reproduction.
>
> Perception is certainly an issue, no argument here. But we also need to consider if it
> is car windshields or eyeglasses that cause you to see optical illusions, or if it is
> your brain, don't you agree?
Agreed.
> If the electronic or electrical equipment is what causes you to hear illusions, that is
> one thing; if the equipment is transparent and it is your brain that hears illusions,
> that is another. Let's just keep the discussion on which is which.
But ultimately we have to rely on the senses to make a value judgement on what is
"transparent" and what isn't. If something isn't "accurate" in a certain frequency range
and my hearing is deficient in that that range, I am likely to still hear it as
"transparent," where as another person might note the anomaly and rightly say, "That isn't
transparent." This is just a simple example. I don't think that you can separate the
senses from the gestalt of the audio experience, just as you can't separate the equipment
either.
I think the startling thing for me was when I took that test and was told that instead of
hearing a series of interlocking tones and others heard "chords." How could somebody hear
something so completely different? Objectively, they were the same set of tones...
Stewart Pinkerton
>
>
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> writes:
>>
>> >So, until you can absolutely tell me why I see water in the desert
>>
>> Temperature inversion layer reflection/refraction
>
>Why doesn't the brain correct for this as it does with many other optical situations?
Because it doesn't know that the effect is there, since the rest of
the world is still normal. It's not like wearing prismatic glasses,
where the eye/brain unit can adapt.
>> > or see a pencil
>> >bend when loosely tossed between two fingers
>>
>> Neuro-optical persistence
>
>Why does this particular neuro-optical persistence occur in the first place? After all,
>the brain compensates for moving objects all the time...
And it sees that same distortion all the time.
>> > or construct a stereo image from 4
>> >separate points (or even two)
>>
>> HRTF
>
>So why are some people able to localize sound better than others?
Why can't I run a 4-minute mile?
> Why can you still
>tell the difference between live sounds and canned sounds in another room?
One can't always, although this is unusual.
> Why are you
>fooled sometimes into "thinking" that you're listening to a stereo image (try and fool
>your friends, or yourself, sometimes by playing a high quality mono source sometime.)
This is usually a sign of a poorly imaging system! You don't use
Mirage speakers, do you? :-)
>> > or not hear ticks and pops after a while on a record,
>>
>> Selective masking by the brain
>
>Aha...now the brain is playing tricks on us. Who knows how else the brain "selectively"
>processes data in order for us to make sense of it?
Indeed........
Richard D Pierce
dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> writes:
>>
>> >So, until you can absolutely tell me why I see water in the desert
>>
>> Temperature inversion layer reflection/refraction
>
>Why doesn't the brain correct for this as it does with many other optical situations?
What's the brain to correct for? It processes incoming rays into
a coherent image for the brain to observe. There is no
information in the incoming rays that distinguish them from
temperature inversion refraction from light reflected off water
The mirage is NOT an "optical illusion," in that it is the mind
playing tricks, rather it is a REAL optical effect, one that can
be photographed, measured, etc.
>> >bend when loosely tossed between two fingers
>>
>> Neuro-optical persistence
>
>Why does this particular neuro-optical persistence occur in the first
>place?
Simply because the chemical reactions that are invloved, along
woith the processing, takes time.
>After all, the brain compensates for moving objects all
>the time...
It absolutely does not. Quickly moving objects are seen as a
blur. The brain does not compensate
>> > or construct a stereo image from 4
>> >separate points (or even two)
>>
>> HRTF
>
>So why are some people able to localize sound better than others?
Do they? Or do they claim they do?
>Why can you still
>tell the difference between live sounds and canned sounds in
>another room?
Vastly different ratio of direct to reverberent energy, for one.
Radically different frequency balance on familiar sounds for
another.
> Why are you
>fooled sometimes into "thinking" that you're listening to a stereo
>image (try and fool your friends, or yourself, sometimes by
>playing a high quality mono source sometime.)
I am?
>>
>> Selective masking by the brain
>
>Aha...now the brain is playing tricks on us.
Sorry to say, but your brain is ALWAYS playing tricks on you.
There are a vast array of auditory illusions that are easy to
reproduce that demonstrate how easily it is to fool the auditory
system.
>Who knows how else the brain "selectively"
>processes data in order for us to make sense of it?
A century of auditory scientists and acousticians, that's who.
Start with Helmholtz, and move on through a huge array of people
who dedictaed their lives to the study of human auditory
perception, like Fletcher, Munson, Shcroeder and many others.
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| DPi...@world.std.com |
Ed F
dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3783A4D4...@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> > dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >
> > >So, until you can absolutely tell me why I see water in the desert
> >
> > Temperature inversion layer reflection/refraction
>
> Why doesn't the brain correct for this as it does with many other optical
situations?
Its an illusion. The brain doesn't know that its an illusion. Its similar
to on a very hot day
the surface of your car looks like its waving back and forth when in
actuality its not.
<snip>>
> So why are some people able to localize sound better than others? Why can
you still
> tell the difference between live sounds and canned sounds in another room?
Why are you
> fooled sometimes into "thinking" that you're listening to a stereo image
(try and fool
> your friends, or yourself, sometimes by playing a high quality mono source
sometime.)
I think this depends on the person. Some people can't localize sounds as
well as
others. Hey, some people can't hear past 12khz. Some people can't tell the
difference
if you remove an entire spectrum of audio....
Ed
dave weil
Richard D Pierce wrote:
> In article <3783A4D4...@mindspring.com>,
> dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >
> >> dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >>
> >> >So, until you can absolutely tell me why I see water in the desert
> >>
> >> Temperature inversion layer reflection/refraction
> >
> >Why doesn't the brain correct for this as it does with many other optical situations?
>
> What's the brain to correct for? It processes incoming rays into
> a coherent image for the brain to observe. There is no
> information in the incoming rays that distinguish them from
> temperature inversion refraction from light reflected off water
>
> The mirage is NOT an "optical illusion," in that it is the mind
> playing tricks, rather it is a REAL optical effect, one that can
> be photographed, measured, etc.
I can't argue with that <g>.
>
>
> >> >bend when loosely tossed between two fingers
> >>
> >> Neuro-optical persistence
> >
> >Why does this particular neuro-optical persistence occur in the first
> >place?
>
> Simply because the chemical reactions that are invloved, along
> woith the processing, takes time.
Could the same thing be true in the case of processing "audio cues?"
>
>
> >After all, the brain compensates for moving objects all
> >the time...
>
> It absolutely does not. Quickly moving objects are seen as a
> blur. The brain does not compensate
But it does. What about an Atlas rocket that is departing at a high rate of speed. Looks
like it's almost standing still. I know it's all a matter of perpective and perspective
is one of those "tricky" areas where the brain can be fooled.
>
>
> >> > or construct a stereo image from 4
> >> >separate points (or even two)
> >>
> >> HRTF
> >
> >So why are some people able to localize sound better than others?
>
> Do they? Or do they claim they do?
>
> >Why can you still
> >tell the difference between live sounds and canned sounds in
> >another room?
>
> Vastly different ratio of direct to reverberent energy, for one.
> Radically different frequency balance on familiar sounds for
> another.
>
> > Why are you
> >fooled sometimes into "thinking" that you're listening to a stereo
> >image (try and fool your friends, or yourself, sometimes by
> >playing a high quality mono source sometime.)
>
> I am?
You might. Don't be surprised if in a blind listening you might not be able to tell that
something is mono. Some mono recordings have a semblance of a "soundstage," especially
large symphonic pieces. Or at least I've heard some well-made 50s recordings that gave
that "illusion."
>
>
> >>
> >> Selective masking by the brain
> >
> >Aha...now the brain is playing tricks on us.
>
> Sorry to say, but your brain is ALWAYS playing tricks on you.
>
> There are a vast array of auditory illusions that are easy to
> reproduce that demonstrate how easily it is to fool the auditory
> system.
Exactly.
>
>
> >Who knows how else the brain "selectively"
> >processes data in order for us to make sense of it?
>
> A century of auditory scientists and acousticians, that's who.
> Start with Helmholtz, and move on through a huge array of people
> who dedictaed their lives to the study of human auditory
> perception, like Fletcher, Munson, Shcroeder and many others.
And they have discovered quite a few things. But that doesn't mean that they've
discovered *everything.* Are you saying that everything's been discovered and therefore
we don't need to do additional studies (like the left brained right brained one that I
quoted?)
Paul Wagner
> Did you know that they're testing the hypothesis that left
> brained people hear differently than right brained? Actually put the data together
> differently? ... Apparently left brained
> people hear something completely different than right brained people (one hears
> chords and the other hears series or something along that line.)
Journal of Psychoacoustics. edited by Diana Deutsch, out of U Berkeley,
might have more on this.
I'll testify that as a lifelong lefty, I hear things differently;
numerous people ask me to listen to their mixes as a final test, because
I almost always hear things their right-handed friends don't (and don''t
hear other things that they do!)
Smilodon
Actually, this isn't a brain trick. Just look at the waves and
optics section of a basic Physics textbook. This is nothing
different in the brain than seeing a cat.
The Southern Ear
http://www.pcavretch.free-online.co.uk/wlcmpcav.html
:)
Brian L. McCarty
how the brain processes audio. And yet we continue to make "pronouncements"
about what "specifications" are important and what aren't. Likewise with
the "data reduced" audio schemes like AC-3. . . .so little is known about
our ear/brain system and yet a few geeks get together and decide WHAT sounds
they can throw away! It's really an absurdity.
----------
In article <37834E51...@mindspring.com>, dave weil
<dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> If electronics was the only factor then you'd be right. But you're leaving
out the
> most important link in the chain, the brain. How much do we *really* know
about
> how it processes data? Did you know that they're testing the hypothesis that
left
> brained people hear differently than right brained? Actually put the data
together
> differently? I participated in a student test (Belmont College) of just that
> hypothesis. I wasn't informed about the results (and it doesn't really matter
to
> me.) I was given a series of tones in each ear. They were structured in
different
> ways - in various series. They were times differently in each ear. Sometimes
they
> were ascending in one and descending in the other. Sometimes they coincided.
> sometimes they were in opposition. I was to tell the tester what I heard,
whether
> I heard chords or series of tones during each sequence. Apparently left
brained
> people hear something completely different than right brained people (one
hears
Paul Wagner
> How much more about electronics do we need to understand? Do you also have data
> suggesting there are other variables to electricity we aren't measuring?
Robert Stanton just gave details, in the "Question on Wires" thread in
Rao, of two tests virtually never used in audio component evaluation,
which nevertheless can show far different results...
bf...@ibm.net
> (snip)
> >> > or construct a stereo image from 4
> >> >separate points (or even two)
> >>
> >> HRTF
> >
> >So why are some people able to localize sound better than others?
>
> Do they? Or do they claim they do?
Dick,
Localization performance does vary greatly across
the population. Well documented in papers on hearing
localization. Best place to start is with Fred and Doris
(Wightman and Kistler) at U of Wisc.
It's a rare occassion, and a nice one, when I have the
opportunity to give you information (rather than take).
John Feng
André Huisman
>>So why are some people able to localize sound better than others?
>Do they? Or do they claim they do?
Training?
Ask any blind man/woman. They can hear the shape of a room, the vicinity of
blocking objects and a lot of other things we "seeing people" are unaware
of.
André Huisman
New Line licht & geluid
new...@xs4all.nl
http://www.xs4all.nl/~newline/
--- pardon my French, I'm Dutch ---|
bf...@ibm.net
Stewart Replied:
> (snip)
> > >> >bend when loosely tossed between two fingers
> > >> Neuro-optical persistence
> > >Why does this particular neuro-optical persistence occur in the first
> > >place?
> > Simply because the chemical reactions that are invloved, along
> > woith the processing, takes time.
> Could the same thing be true in the case of processing "audio cues?"
Dave,
All of our sensory processes have, among other things,
finite temporal and spectral response times and something
that can be described as "integration."
> > >After all, the brain compensates for moving objects all
> > >the time...
> >
> > It absolutely does not. Quickly moving objects are seen as a
> > blur. The brain does not compensate
>
> But it does. What about an Atlas rocket that is departing at a high rate of speed. Looks
> like it's almost standing still.
The absolute speed is not the important factor. What is important
is the distance, the size of the object (in terms of a % of your visual
field of view), and the angular/lateral velocity.
(snip)
(snip)
> > >Who knows how else the brain "selectively"
> > >processes data in order for us to make sense of it?
> >
> > A century of auditory scientists and acousticians, that's who.
> > Start with Helmholtz, and move on through a huge array of people
> > who dedictaed their lives to the study of human auditory
> > perception, like Fletcher, Munson, Shcroeder and many others.
>
> And they have discovered quite a few things. But that doesn't mean that they've
> discovered *everything.*
You don't have to know EVERYthing to know that human hearing exhibits
some fundamental physiological/psychological characteristics. In point of
fact, we will never know everything about any aspect of the physical world.
That doesn't keep us from doing things with what we do know.
John Feng
Richard D Pierce
>Richard D Pierce wrote:
>> (snip)
>> >> > or construct a stereo image from 4
>> >> >separate points (or even two)
>> >> HRTF
>> Do they? Or do they claim they do?
>the population. Well documented in papers on hearing
>localization. Best place to start is with Fred and Doris
>(Wightman and Kistler) at U of Wisc.
My point here was to distinguish between that data which has
been gathered under controlled conditions, specifically of the
kind you refer to, vs the wild and unsubstantiated claims oft
seen here and in the high-end press.
There is no doubt that there are substantial differences in
localization ability, some of it due to HRTF variations, but
other factors are involved as well, to be sure.
>It's a rare occassion, and a nice one, when I have the
>opportunity to give you information (rather than take).
And while, no, you didn't tell ME anything I didn't already
know, your references to real research (as opposed to simple
grandiose proclamations) is, I am sure, helpful to all.
bf...@ibm.net
> Richard D Pierce heeft geschreven in bericht ...
> >Do they? Or do they claim they do?
Only sometimes.
Some people have lousy localization abilities despite extensive
training.
John Feng
bf...@ibm.net
>
> (snip)
> know,
Gotta try harder next time!
John Feng
dave weil
bf...@ibm.net wrote:
> > > >Who knows how else the brain "selectively"
> > > >processes data in order for us to make sense of it?
> > >
> > > A century of auditory scientists and acousticians, that's who.
> > > Start with Helmholtz, and move on through a huge array of people
> > > who dedictaed their lives to the study of human auditory
> > > perception, like Fletcher, Munson, Shcroeder and many others.
> >
> > And they have discovered quite a few things. But that doesn't mean that they've
> > discovered *everything.*
>
> You don't have to know EVERYthing to know that human hearing exhibits
> some fundamental physiological/psychological characteristics. In point of
> fact, we will never know everything about any aspect of the physical world.
> That doesn't keep us from doing things with what we do know.
The key word here is "some." Using your logic, physics should have stopped when Newton figured
out about gravitation. After all, we know why an apple drops to the ground, right? What in
heaven's name would we ever need to know apart from that?
I guess I just take exception to the fact that we know "all we need to know," or that every
relevant piece of information is out there to explain what happens. The fact the we're even
arguing this suggests otherwise.
>
>
> John Feng
bf...@ibm.net
>
> bf...@ibm.net wrote:
(a Stewart and Pierce also contributed)
> > > > >Who knows how else the brain "selectively" processes data
> > > And they have discovered quite a few things. But that doesn't mean that they've
> > > discovered *everything.*
> >
> > You don't have to know EVERYthing to know that human hearing exhibits
> > some fundamental physiological/psychological characteristics. In point of
> > fact, we will never know everything about any aspect of the physical world.
> > That doesn't keep us from doing things with what we do know.
>
> The key word here is "some." Using your logic, physics should have stopped when Newton figured
> out about gravitation.
Whoa Nellie! Dave, you need to slow down, back off and take a breather!
I said, in short, that one doesn't need complete knowledge of something
in order to use that knowledge. How you get from this to "physics should
have stopped" I just can't figure out. No where did I say anything should
stop or even slow down, for that matter (except for you). As science progresses
(in any field) we make use of what ever amount of knowledge we happen to have.
As new knowledge becomes available, the use of science changes. What's so
strange about that?
Furthermore, anyone who thinks that "everything" is known about any physical
phenomenon is not facing reality. Many times, during the past 200 years,
people have postulated that they were about to reach the fundamental level
of particle physics. Each time, they eventually discovered a further level of
complexity. Why you think this is reason for them to stop is beyond me.
> After all, we know why an apple drops to the ground, right? What in
> heaven's name would we ever need to know apart from that?
>
> I guess I just take exception to the fact that we know "all we need to know," or that every
> relevant piece of information is out there to explain what happens.
Dave, I'm saying there is NOT "every relevant piece of information ...."
Get it?
> The fact the we're even arguing this suggests otherwise.
Whatever . . .
John Feng
Paul Wagner
> You don't have to know EVERYthing to know that human hearing exhibits
> some fundamental physiological/psychological characteristics. In point of
> fact, we will never know everything about any aspect of the physical world.
> That doesn't keep us from doing things with what we do know.
No, but it DOES suggest that inviting people into the discovery process,
as you and JJ do, rather than snarling dogmatically, as Pierce does, is
not only more appropriate but more supportable, as there will always be
more to discover.
Stewart Pinkerton
I'd be little more generous in this matter, since Dick is definitely
one of the more knowledgeable posters around here (if a tad irascible
at times!) and there *are* definite limits to what we can hear, which
are orders of magnitude above some of the admittedly *measurable*
physical effects which are sometimes bandied about on this newgroup in
support of fevered imaginations.............
Stewart Pinkerton
>dave weil wrote:
>>
>> bf...@ibm.net wrote:
>(a Stewart and Pierce also contributed)
>> > > > >Who knows how else the brain "selectively" processes data
>> > > > A century of auditory scientists and acousticians, that's who.(snip)
>> > > And they have discovered quite a few things. But that doesn't mean that they've
>> > > discovered *everything.*
>> >
>> > You don't have to know EVERYthing to know that human hearing exhibits
>> > some fundamental physiological/psychological characteristics. In point of
>> > fact, we will never know everything about any aspect of the physical world.
>> > That doesn't keep us from doing things with what we do know.
>>
>> The key word here is "some." Using your logic, physics should have stopped when Newton figured
>> out about gravitation.
>
>Whoa Nellie! Dave, you need to slow down, back off and take a breather!
>I said, in short, that one doesn't need complete knowledge of something
>in order to use that knowledge. How you get from this to "physics should
>have stopped" I just can't figure out. No where did I say anything should
>stop or even slow down, for that matter (except for you). As science progresses
>(in any field) we make use of what ever amount of knowledge we happen to have.
>As new knowledge becomes available, the use of science changes. What's so
>strange about that?
>
>Furthermore, anyone who thinks that "everything" is known about any physical
>phenomenon is not facing reality. Many times, during the past 200 years,
>people have postulated that they were about to reach the fundamental level
>of particle physics. Each time, they eventually discovered a further level of
>complexity. Why you think this is reason for them to stop is beyond me.
Quite so, but I do get rather tired of all those who use this as an
argument in support of any wacky audio theory which takes their fancy.
Forget *measurement*, which gets better every year - if you can't
*hear* it under controlled conditions, then it's not an audible effect
and hence has no relevance to high fidelity sound reproduction.
Andy Cuffe
>
> In article <7lukst$o2s$1...@news.jump.net>, "Jim Howard"
> <jn...@REMOVE.jump.net> wrote:
>
> > aaaa wrote in message
<1999Jul4.1...@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu>...
> > >Components such as DVD player use digital audio cable (optical or
coaxial)
> > >to connect to other components such as receivers. Does the
quality of
> > >the cable matter much?
>
> > I'd bet a SPR DVD that in a true double blind experiment that there
would be
> > no statistically significant difference in perceived sound quality
between
> > system that differ only in "name brand" v. "generic" cables.
>
> I'll try to address the question at hand, which is digital
interconnects.
>
> I haven't compared optical cables, as my primary system (and other
systems
> that I've used) doesn't have optical connections. However I have
> conducted several blind comparisons of coaxial and XLR digital
cables,
> in a variety of high quality stereo systems costing up to around
$30K.
> I've compared cables ranging from $15 "video" cables up to $500+
> Illuminati digital cables, and including two rather expensive digital
> cables of my own: A Madrigal $250 XLR cable and a Audix Reference
$275-
> $300 coax. A total of 10-11 people participated in these
comparisons,
> this included a couple of very serious audiophiles and 3 audio store
> salesmen.
>
> The results were that no one was able to detect even the slightest
> difference in digital cables. In other blind tests, I've had some
> positive results, and some cases where people failed to reliably
> identify the components but went away swearing they heard a difference
> but were unable to put their finger on it.
>
> This was not the case on digital cables. Every participant admitted
> that they were reduced to random guessing. When I used noiseless,
> immediate switches, not a single person was able to discern when I
> flipped the switch to a different cable.
>
> I still own the two expensive cables mentioned above, however my system
> sounds exactly the same using two $15 AudioQuest Video One cables as
> it does when I use the $550 worth of cables. I paid a total of $160 for
> these cables (both were used but in mint condition), and I'm willing to
> admit that I was duped.
>
> Some will claim that one needs a "high resolution system" to hear
> these differences. But I've used them in systems with gear from
> Mark Levinson, Audio Research, Krell, B&W, Sonic Frontiers,
> Von Schweikert, Theta, Thiel, and Dynaudio and none of these
> have revealed any differences between digital interconnects.
>
> Dana
It's no surprise no one could tell the difference between the cheap and
expensive cables. Although you can make an argument that subtle
distortions are introduced by a cheap analog cable, this doesn't apply
to digital data. A digital cable only carries pulses of high or low
voltages which represent logic one's and zero's. As long all the bits
coming out the other end of the cable are the same as the ones going in,
the signal is absolutely identical. To say otherwise would be like
saying Shakespeare sounds worse when read from a photo copy of a book
than when read from a page he wrote personally. As long as all the
letters are readable, it makes no difference. Even if there is some
distortion in the electrical signals, it won't hurt the signal as long
as the reciever can reliably detect the bits. With the error correction
used in all digital audio eguipment, even if a few bits do get misread,
the signal should still be intact. It would be easy to design an
experiment to test digital cables. All you need to do is compare the
original data to the data being passed through a cable under test and
count the number of errors. If the expensive cables really are better,
why don't they give any data on the % reduction in bit errors over the
regular cables? It's not as simple in analog because the signal will
always be different if you look closely enough. It's a matter of what
kind and how large the differeces can be before they are noticable.
--
Andy Cuffe
balt...@psu.edu
Paul Wagner
> I'd be little more generous in this matter, since Dick is definitely
> one of the more knowledgeable posters around here (if a tad irascible
> at times!) and there *are* definite limits to what we can hear, which
> are orders of magnitude above some of the admittedly *measurable*
> physical effects which are sometimes bandied about on this newgroup in
> support of fevered imaginations.............
I will do my best to hold my tongue in a bit more check.....
John Busenitz
news:7m0dsn$n8k$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Amar Bose has often discussed how little research has ever been done into
> how the brain processes audio.
Compared to...?
Really, there has been quite a bit of research. Perhaps Bose
just doesn't know about it. Ever hear of the NRC?
> And yet we continue to make "pronouncements"
> about what "specifications" are important and what aren't.
This CAN be based on psychoacoustical research, Bwian.
> Likewise with
> the "data reduced" audio schemes like AC-3. . . .so little is known about
> our ear/brain system and yet a few geeks get together and decide WHAT
sounds
> they can throw away! It's really an absurdity.
What's absurd is the stupidity shown by this poster. No,
perceptually-based codecs are based on years of research
on psychoacoustics. It's not "a few geeks" that put it
together, but well educated and expert people with MUCH
more knowledge in this area than you.
Get a clue.
Bill Upwood Jr
leading the blind :)
John Busenitz <buse...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7m3hhg$5e9$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Ben Watson
That is where the bell curve comes into play. If there are X% of the population that can hear
cables, why have NONE showed up in blind tests, many of which have not used a switching box (a
well known RAO example is Singh's test)?
THAT'S the part I don't get. I will be doing my own test in my own system in a few weeks. I
have a good grade of 6-9s copper, with gold flashed RCAs (I don't remove them very often, so
flash is fine) and foamed dielectric. Will I be able to detect a difference between them and
some expensive AQs? We'll see. I'm going to do it blind first, then sighted to see if my
perceptions change.
> I think the startling thing for me was when I took that test and was told that instead of
> hearing a series of interlocking tones and others heard "chords." How could somebody hear
> something so completely different? Objectively, they were the same set of tones...
While interesting, hearing same/different is a different matter, and none of those people who
can hear the difference under controlled conditions.
Personally, I hope one does someday. I thought Trevor was going to do an amp test, but it
seems that fell through.
dave weil
Ben Watson wrote:
> dave weil wrote:
>
> > Slim Middius wrote:
> >
> > > If the electronic or electrical equipment is what causes you to hear illusions, that is
> > > one thing; if the equipment is transparent and it is your brain that hears illusions,
> > > that is another. Let's just keep the discussion on which is which.
> >
> > But ultimately we have to rely on the senses to make a value judgement on what is
> > "transparent" and what isn't. If something isn't "accurate" in a certain frequency range
> > and my hearing is deficient in that that range, I am likely to still hear it as
> > "transparent," where as another person might note the anomaly and rightly say, "That isn't
> > transparent." This is just a simple example. I don't think that you can separate the
> > senses from the gestalt of the audio experience, just as you can't separate the equipment
> > either.
>
> That is where the bell curve comes into play. If there are X% of the population that can hear
> cables, why have NONE showed up in blind tests, many of which have not used a switching box (a
> well known RAO example is Singh's test)?
As far as I know, there are something like 25 tests (as claimed by Arny) that have been done
(amps, cables, etc.) Doens't seem like a lot to me. Sure, you can poll 1000 people and get
statistical results. But that's why polls are often wrong <g>.
> THAT'S the part I don't get. I will be doing my own test in my own system in a few weeks. I
> have a good grade of 6-9s copper, with gold flashed RCAs (I don't remove them very often, so
> flash is fine) and foamed dielectric. Will I be able to detect a difference between them and
> some expensive AQs? We'll see. I'm going to do it blind first, then sighted to see if my
> perceptions change.
Good for you! I'm planning the same thing.
> > I think the startling thing for me was when I took that test and was told that instead of
> > hearing a series of interlocking tones and others heard "chords." How could somebody hear
> > something so completely different? Objectively, they were the same set of tones...
>
> While interesting, hearing same/different is a different matter, and none of those people who
> can hear the difference under controlled conditions.
The point is that if two sets of people can actually hear two events so differently, then
something is going on that we don't quite understand. Could this 95% of the brains functions that
we don't understand have something to do with these perceived differences that some claim (and
some claim *not*) to hear. Is it any surprise that engineers would generally fall into the "left
brain" category?
dave weil
bf...@ibm.net wrote:
That's why it burns me up when people blithely say, the principles of audiology have been known for
as long as a hundred years. Of course they have. But that doesn't mean that there aren't further
things to be learned yet. The initial research into the way that the hemispheres process data only
began in 1961 or so. It wan't until the mid 80s that someone discovered how this processing affects
perception. It would be different to postulate "hypothetical" things that we don't know if nobdy
reported these claims. But something, apart from placebo effects and preconditioning, *might* be
going on. That's all I'm saying. And it may turn out that they aren't. <shrug>
Richard D Pierce
dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>That's why it burns me up when people blithely say, the principles
>of audiology have been known for as long as a hundred years.
No one, most especially me, has every blithely said that the
principles of audiology have been known for 100 years.
First of all, audiology is a specific discipline. What we have
been talking about is a braoder understanding of the field known
as psychoacoustics. You need to leanr the difference.
>Of course they have. But that doesn't mean that there aren't
>further things to be learned yet.
And who made such a claim? Me? no. Anyone? or is this yet
another strawman argument.
The statement that the research into how hearing works dates
back well over 100 years is absolutely demonstrable. And that
statement is made to counter any number of fantastic,
extraordinary and ludicrous claims about hearing often made in
these parts. Some of those claims include nonsense like:
1. The human ear is capable of far higher resolution than any
test instrument.
2. The human ear is not easily fooled (this is especially
lidicrous, given the number of examples of simple-to-
perform auditory illusions documented by Helmholtz and
others a century ago).
3. Auditory memory is essentially perfect.
Further claims have been made supporting the notion that some
magic is happening when so-called self-appointed "golden ears"
make wild and unsubstantiated proclamations of one sort or
another.
The high-end audio industry is so far behind, in many ways, the
state of the audio and auditory science art, that claims of new
and heretofore undiscovered properties are ludicrous. And, they
are offered as religious declarations of faith, with no
supporting evidence.
> The initial research into the way that the hemispheres process
> data only
>began in 1961 or so.
Well, maybe, but the PROPERTIES and BEHAVIOR of this were well
known 100 years prior, again, see Helmholtz.
>It would be different to postulate "hypothetical" things that
>we don't know if nobdy reported these claims.
Yes, it would be and, unfortunately, it is these "hypothetical
things" that ARE routinely proposed by puveyors and supporters
of audio myth and magic.
> But something, apart from placebo effects and preconditioning,
>*might* be going on. That's all I'm saying. And it may turn
>out that they aren't.
Precisely.
However, if you do NOT do ANYTHING to eliminate the effects of
placebo and preconditioning, HOW WILL YOU EVER KNOW IF THERE IS
SOMETHING THERE?
The claims made be many that they don not need controls in
listening to discover things are essentially making the arrogant
claim that they are perfect. Sorry, but that century of research
has pointed out VERY CLEARLY that hearing is FAR from perfect
and is very EASILY fooled. That much we do know VERY well,
despite the rabid, strident and very uninformed claims of many
here and elsewhere in this industry to the contrary.
bf...@ibm.net
A nice reply to Dave. I still don't understand how
Dave got into such a tizzy.
Richard D Pierce wrote:
> (snip)
> No one, most especially me, has every blithely said that the
> principles of audiology have been known for 100 years.
(snip)
> Further claims have been made supporting the notion that some
> magic is happening when so-called self-appointed "golden ears"
> make wild and unsubstantiated proclamations of one sort or
> another.
However, there have been studies which show some "golden ears"
do have excellent (well above average) critical listening abilities.
This is not to say that their peripheral auditory systems work
any better than average. It is most likely an indication that they can
"focus" on specific portions of a sound better than the
average joe, and thereby they are more sensitive to changes that
occur in small "aspects" of a sound. Before ya'll start flaming
me, think for a moment about training subjective test subjects.
John Feng
(snip)
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Bill Upwood Jr <wj...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>Following this thread makes me think double blind tests means the blind
>leading the blind :)
Well, Bill, all the psychoacousticians I know of, including historically,
used some kind of blind testing strategy.
>John Busenitz <buse...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:7m3hhg$5e9$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> Brian L. McCarty <opera...@worldjazz.com> wrote in message
>> > Likewise with
>> > the "data reduced" audio schemes like AC-3. . . .so little is known
>about
>> > our ear/brain system and yet a few geeks get together and decide WHAT
>> sounds
>> > they can throw away! It's really an absurdity.
Of course, perceptual coders don't look into the higher aspects of
the ear-brain system, and use well-known facts about the auditory
periphery to decide what can and can not be heard.
Among the "geeks" so included are Helmholtz, Weber, vonBekesy,
Fechner, Fletcher, Munson, Zwicker, Fassl, Wegel, Lane, Scharf,
Hellman, Gitza, Hall, Allen, and all of the people who have
characterized the performance of the human auditory system.
>> What's absurd is the stupidity shown by this poster. No,
>> perceptually-based codecs are based on years of research
>> on psychoacoustics. It's not "a few geeks" that put it
>> together, but well educated and expert people with MUCH
>> more knowledge in this area than you.
This is only one of the barbaric behaviors that people have noted, John.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 1999, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
dave weil
Richard D Pierce wrote:
> In article <3785E602...@mindspring.com>,
> dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >That's why it burns me up when people blithely say, the principles
> >of audiology have been known for as long as a hundred years.
>
> No one, most especially me, has every blithely said that the
> principles of audiology have been known for 100 years.
Then why is it whenever someone questions the state of our knowledge
they always say something to the effect of, "The parameters of
determining what is audible has been well-known for a hundred years.
The significant research was done by Heimholz, et.al" implying that
there's nothing of significance yet to be uncovered.
And you say exactly what you claim not to say later in your tome, only
in different words.
>
> First of all, audiology is a specific discipline. What we have
> been talking about is a braoder understanding of the field known
> as psychoacoustics. You need to leanr the difference.
Exuse me, psychoacoustics. I assumed that you knew what I was talking
about though, oh prickly one.
>
>
> >Of course they have. But that doesn't mean that there aren't
> >further things to be learned yet.
>
> And who made such a claim? Me? no. Anyone? or is this yet
> another strawman argument.
See above.
> The statement that the research into how hearing works dates
> back well over 100 years is absolutely demonstrable. And that
> statement is made to counter any number of fantastic,
> extraordinary and ludicrous claims about hearing often made in
> these parts. Some of those claims include nonsense like:
>
> 1. The human ear is capable of far higher resolution than any
> test instrument.
Which I haven't said...
> 2. The human ear is not easily fooled (this is especially
> lidicrous, given the number of examples of simple-to-
> perform auditory illusions documented by Helmholtz and
> others a century ago).
Which I *certainly* haven't said...
> 3. Auditory memory is essentially perfect.
Which I also haven't said...
All three of those are arguments for the idea that perhaps there's
something else going on that isn't readily explained by reading test
results. But you have to look at it from a different perspective. If
the ear is fooled and auditory memory is flawed, and the brain has to
compensate for a less than perfect organ, then perhaps the measurements
that we're familiar with aren't the only things affecting sound as
perceived by the brain. Or perhaps they affect how we perceive sound
differently than what we've come to expect. Arny can claim for instance
that zip cord is sufficiently "transparent" but he's still made a
quantitative judgement based on the senses. The key words are
"sufficiently" and "transparent." <g> If I'm color-blind, the sky will
always be something other than blue to me, regardless of how much of a
percentage of the population protests, and how many scientists produce
wavelenth measurements. It's a flaw in the senses, but as you've
pointed out, there is *no* human being without flawed sensory audio
mechanisms.
>
> Further claims have been made supporting the notion that some
> magic is happening when so-called self-appointed "golden ears"
> make wild and unsubstantiated proclamations of one sort or
> another.
A highly-charged prejudicial statement that you're entitled to make.
> The high-end audio industry is so far behind, in many ways, the
> state of the audio and auditory science art, that claims of new
> and heretofore undiscovered properties are ludicrous. And, they
> are offered as religious declarations of faith, with no
> supporting evidence.
As apposed to bowing at the altar of science I suppose. Most of the
objectivist claims (including yours) have a religious zeal that's
scarely matched.
> > The initial research into the way that the hemispheres process
> > data only
> >began in 1961 or so.
>
> Well, maybe, but the PROPERTIES and BEHAVIOR of this were well
> known 100 years prior, again, see Helmholtz.
Why, is there a left brain and right brain Heimholz effect?
> >It would be different to postulate "hypothetical" things that
> >we don't know if nobdy reported these claims.
>
> Yes, it would be and, unfortunately, it is these "hypothetical
> things" that ARE routinely proposed by puveyors and supporters
> of audio myth and magic.
"Hypothetical" things that are claimed to be heard (for whatever
reason.) Who are you to question whether they hear these effects? Test
for them, perhaps. But until you disqualify them, then you're just
speaking "hypothetically" too.
> > But something, apart from placebo effects and preconditioning,
> >*might* be going on. That's all I'm saying. And it may turn
> >out that they aren't.
>
> Precisely.
Even though you're being sarcastic, you don't know how right you are.
> However, if you do NOT do ANYTHING to eliminate the effects of
> placebo and preconditioning, HOW WILL YOU EVER KNOW IF THERE IS
> SOMETHING THERE?
Hey, keep testing.
> The claims made be many that they don not need controls in
> listening to discover things are essentially making the arrogant
> claim that they are perfect. Sorry, but that century of research
> has pointed out VERY CLEARLY that hearing is FAR from perfect
> and is very EASILY fooled.
No shit. That's what I've been saying all along. So what makes you
think that such claims like zip cord offers a transparent sound and you
can't better it isn't subject to the same frailty of the senses?
> That much we do know VERY well,
> despite the rabid, strident and very uninformed claims of many
> here and elsewhere in this industry to the contrary.
Rabid seems to apply to both sides of the argument.
bf...@ibm.net
dave weil wrote:
>
> Richard D Pierce wrote:
> (snip) a hundred years.
> >
> > No one, most especially me, has every blithely said that the
> > principles of audiology have been known for 100 years.
>
> Then why is it whenever someone questions the state of our knowledge
> they always say something to the effect of, "The parameters of
> determining what is audible has been well-known for a hundred years.
Dave,
Who said this? When? Reference the post. Who was the poster?
In point of fact, there is a great deal known about the audibility
of a wide class of signals. Detection thresholds for the auditory
periphery are one of, if not THE, oldest topics of auditory research.
Of course, not everything is known, but enough is know to
answer a of a lot of suppositions about what is audible.
One final point. If the auditory periphery doesn't register a
response to an auditory input, the higher order processes (e.g.
what happens in the brain) are irrelevant.
> The significant research was done by Heimholz, et.al" implying that
> there's nothing of significance yet to be uncovered.
Whoa! You're off in left field again Dave. Nothing I've
seen from Pierce or Stewart even remotely implies that everything
significant has already be covered. There's a big whopping
difference between saying, "significant research done by ..."
and "everything of significance." Comprehend?
>
> And you say exactly what you claim not to say later in your tome, only
> in different words.
You completely misread/intepret it.
> > First of all, audiology is a specific discipline. What we have
> > been talking about is a braoder understanding of the field known
> > as psychoacoustics. You need to leanr the difference.
>
> Exuse me, psychoacoustics. I assumed that you knew what I was talking
> about though, oh prickly one.
It's an important distinction. Calling one the other is like
calling a brick layer a ceramic material scientist.
> > The statement that the research into how hearing works dates
> > back well over 100 years is absolutely demonstrable. (snip)
> >
> > 1. The human ear is capable of far higher resolution than any
> > test instrument.
> Which I haven't said...
He didn't say you said this.
> > 2. The human ear is not easily fooled(snip)
>
> Which I *certainly* haven't said...
he didn't say you said it.
> > 3. Auditory memory is essentially perfect.
>
> Which I also haven't said...
Ditto.
> All three of those are arguments for the idea that perhaps there's
> something else going on that isn't readily explained by reading test
> results. But you have to look at it from a different perspective. If
> the ear is fooled and auditory memory is flawed, and the brain has to
> compensate for a less than perfect organ, then perhaps the measurements
> that we're familiar with aren't the only things affecting sound as
> perceived by the brain.
And nobody in the hearing sciences has the wherewithall to think of this
possibility?
> Or perhaps they affect how we perceive sound
> differently than what we've come to expect.
Scientists don't expect, they observe and try to explain.
> Arny can claim for instance
> that zip cord is sufficiently "transparent" but he's still made a
> quantitative judgement based on the senses.
Well, you have a point. To be strictly correct, he should say "sufficiently transparent" for
him and others who he's tested/worked with. Whether or not that experience
extrapolates to the general population is a different issue.
> The key words are "sufficiently" and "transparent." <g>
> If I'm color-blind, the sky will
> always be something other than blue to me, regardless of how much of a
> percentage of the population protests,
If Arny and the rest of SMWTMS were aurally deaf, you'd have a good point.
However, in truth they are a a bunch of die-hard audio hobbyists who do
a lot of listening, tweeking (though not always in the traditional
high-end sense).
(snip)
> > However, if you do NOT do ANYTHING to eliminate the effects of
> > placebo and preconditioning, HOW WILL YOU EVER KNOW IF THERE IS
> > SOMETHING THERE?
>
> Hey, keep testing.
Repeating a bad test does not improve the test nor does it improve the validity
of the data.
> > The claims made be many that they don not need controls in
> > listening (snip)
>
> No shit. That's what I've been saying all along. So what makes you
> think that such claims like zip cord offers a transparent sound and you
> can't better it isn't subject to the same frailty of the senses?
He's implying that repeated yield evidence that it is.
John Feng
Richard D Pierce
>> Further claims have been made supporting the notion that some
>> magic is happening when so-called self-appointed "golden ears"
>> make wild and unsubstantiated proclamations of one sort or
>> another.
>
>do have excellent (well above average) critical listening abilities.
>This is not to say that their peripheral auditory systems work
>any better than average. It is most likely an indication that they can
>"focus" on specific portions of a sound better than the
>average joe, and thereby they are more sensitive to changes that
>occur in small "aspects" of a sound. Before ya'll start flaming
>me, think for a moment about training subjective test subjects.
To amplify the point, the findings of those actually engaged in
auditory research indicate that whatever abilities these are,
exist for the most part because of training, not some inherent
ability. Experience has shown even that those with impaired
hearing can have very good listening abilities after training
within the bounds of the response of the peripheral system.
Richard D Pierce
dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote a fairly large amount
of misrepresentation:
>> In article <3785E602...@mindspring.com>,
>> dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >That's why it burns me up when people blithely say, the principles
>> >of audiology have been known for as long as a hundred years.
>>
>> No one, most especially me, has every blithely said that the
>> principles of audiology have been known for 100 years.
>
>Then why is it whenever someone questions the state of our knowledge
>they always say something to the effect of, "The parameters of
>determining what is audible has been well-known for a hundred years.
>The significant research was done by Heimholz, et.al" implying that
>there's nothing of significance yet to be uncovered.
Sir, it is you and ONLY you that makes such an illogical leap.
Your "implication" is yours and your alone, and your are being
dishonest by accusing me or anyone else of YOUR implication.
>And you say exactly what you claim not to say later in your tome, only
>in different words.
No I do not, and you either misread or misrepresent what I
wrote.
>> >Of course they have. But that doesn't mean that there aren't
>> >further things to be learned yet.
>>
>> And who made such a claim? Me? no. Anyone? or is this yet
>> another strawman argument.
>See above.
No, YOU made the claim: it's YOUR implication and if anyone is
wrong for doing so, it's YOU.
>> The statement that the research into how hearing works dates
>> back well over 100 years is absolutely demonstrable. And that
>> statement is made to counter any number of fantastic,
>> extraordinary and ludicrous claims about hearing often made in
>> these parts. Some of those claims include nonsense like:
>>
>> 1. The human ear is capable of far higher resolution
>Which I haven't said...
>> 2. The human ear is not easily fooled
>Which I *certainly* haven't said...
>> 3. Auditory memory is essentially perfect.
>Which I also haven't said...
Where, ANYWHERE did I say you did? Again, you make up words then
stick them in my mouth.
I said, "the statement is made to counter any number of
fantastic, estraordinary and ludicrous claims." Where, ANYWHERE,
did I say YOU made those claims? Again, you make leaps that
simply aren't there, construct strawman arguments, misrepresent
and misquite.
>results. But you have to look at it from a different perspective. If
>the ear is fooled and auditory memory is flawed, and the brain has to
>compensate for a less than perfect organ,
Sorry, but the vast majority of those auditory illusion effect
the ENTIRE hearing and comprehension process. Some of these
common illusion are so string that even when the subject is
fully aware of the illusion, the illusion remains.
More precisely, one should say that the ear/brain are easily
fooled.
>> Further claims have been made supporting the notion that some
>> magic is happening when so-called self-appointed "golden ears"
>> make wild and unsubstantiated proclamations of one sort or
>> another.
>
>A highly-charged prejudicial statement that you're entitled to make.
Hardly,, read the pages of any one of a number of the high end
rags which claim fantastic effects from pucks and magic bricks,
then dismiss ALL criticism by saying things like "your system
isn't of high-enough resolution," or, finally, "you can't hear."
The nonsense promulgated by Dr. Diamond is a calssic case of
backpedaling on a fantastic claim b essentially ascribing
special properties and abilites to the claimant, and dismissing
all oither criticism.
>> Well, maybe, but the PROPERTIES and BEHAVIOR of this were well
>> known 100 years prior, again, see Helmholtz.
>
>Why, is there a left brain and right brain Heimholz effect?
What "Helholtx effect?" What on earth are you talking about. ave
you even read the book? Have you any idea what is described
therein?
>> > But something, apart from placebo effects and preconditioning,
>> >*might* be going on. That's all I'm saying. And it may turn
>> >out that they aren't.
>>
>> Precisely.
>
>Even though you're being sarcastic, you don't know how right you are.
No, I am NOT being sarcastic, and your continued desire to put
your spin on my viewpoint is dishonest.
>> However, if you do NOT do ANYTHING to eliminate the effects of
>> placebo and preconditioning, HOW WILL YOU EVER KNOW IF THERE IS
>> SOMETHING THERE?
>
>Hey, keep testing.
And? Or is that the best you can do?
>> The claims made be many that they don not need controls in
>> listening to discover things are essentially making the arrogant
>> claim that they are perfect. Sorry, but that century of research
>> has pointed out VERY CLEARLY that hearing is FAR from perfect
>> and is very EASILY fooled.
>
>No shit. That's what I've been saying all along. So what makes you
>think that such claims like zip cord offers a transparent sound and you
>can't better it isn't subject to the same frailty of the senses?
Why, once cagin, do you claim to know what I think? I suggest
you deal with what YOU think and stop telling the rest of the
world what THEY think. So far, you demonstrated almost no
success at it.
>> That much we do know VERY well,
>> despite the rabid, strident and very uninformed claims of many
>> here and elsewhere in this industry to the contrary.
>
>Rabid seems to apply to both sides of the argument.
Rabid, yes. But comments such as the "Helmholtz effect" do
demonstrate that one side in this particular discussion does
suffer from a deficit in information. Add to that the out and
out misrepresemtation...
dave weil
Richard D Pierce wrote:
> In article <37862531...@mindspring.com>,
> dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote a fairly large amount
> of misrepresentation:
> >> In article <3785E602...@mindspring.com>,
> >> dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >That's why it burns me up when people blithely say, the principles
> >> >of audiology have been known for as long as a hundred years.
> >>
> >> No one, most especially me, has every blithely said that the
> >> principles of audiology have been known for 100 years.
> >
> >Then why is it whenever someone questions the state of our knowledge
> >they always say something to the effect of, "The parameters of
> >determining what is audible has been well-known for a hundred years.
> >The significant research was done by Heimholz, et.al" implying that
> >there's nothing of significance yet to be uncovered.
>
> Sir, it is you and ONLY you that makes such an illogical leap.
> Your "implication" is yours and your alone, and your are being
> dishonest by accusing me or anyone else of YOUR implication.
>
Why is it the stock answer then? If the inference isn't there, then why
make the statement in the first place?
>
> >And you say exactly what you claim not to say later in your tome, only
> >in different words.
>
> No I do not, and you either misread or misrepresent what I
> wrote.
"The statement that the research into how hearing works dates
>> back well over 100 years is absolutely demonstrable. And that
>> statement is made to counter any number of fantastic,
>> extraordinary and ludicrous claims about hearing often made in
>> these parts."
How have I misrepresented your words?
>
> >> >Of course they have. But that doesn't mean that there aren't
> >> >further things to be learned yet.
> >>
> >> And who made such a claim? Me? no. Anyone? or is this yet
> >> another strawman argument.
> >See above.
>
> No, YOU made the claim: it's YOUR implication and if anyone is
> wrong for doing so, it's YOU.
You guys say, "We already know what we need to explain why esoteric cables
don't offer any advantage over zip cord" for instance. JJ once told me that
there are only 3 measurements that matter in cable sound (maybe 4, I can't
remember exactly.) And he claims that these measurements have been known
for years. Well, maybe they have. But maybe there's something else that
explains *why* some poeple hear differences. Maybe it's placebo. Mybe it's
preconditioning. Or maybe there are other cues that are affected by other
factors. Or maybe not. You might be correct.
>
>
> >> The statement that the research into how hearing works dates
> >> back well over 100 years is absolutely demonstrable. And that
> >> statement is made to counter any number of fantastic,
> >> extraordinary and ludicrous claims about hearing often made in
> >> these parts. Some of those claims include nonsense like:
> >>
> >> 1. The human ear is capable of far higher resolution
> >Which I haven't said...
> >> 2. The human ear is not easily fooled
> >Which I *certainly* haven't said...
> >> 3. Auditory memory is essentially perfect.
> >Which I also haven't said...
>
> Where, ANYWHERE did I say you did? Again, you make up words then
> stick them in my mouth.
I assumed that you were lumping me in the "fantastic, extraordinary, and
ludicrous claims about hearing." Was I wrong?
> I said, "the statement is made to counter any number of
> fantastic, estraordinary and ludicrous claims." Where, ANYWHERE,
> did I say YOU made those claims? Again, you make leaps that
> simply aren't there, construct strawman arguments, misrepresent
> and misquite.
If my assumtion that you don't think my claims are as represented above,
then I apologize. I guess my claims aren't so then. <g>
> >results. But you have to look at it from a different perspective. If
> >the ear is fooled and auditory memory is flawed, and the brain has to
> >compensate for a less than perfect organ,
>
> Sorry, but the vast majority of those auditory illusion effect
> the ENTIRE hearing and comprehension process. Some of these
> common illusion are so string that even when the subject is
> fully aware of the illusion, the illusion remains.
>
> More precisely, one should say that the ear/brain are easily
> fooled.
As I have said, making it the basis of my argument. The brain might or
might not correlate to what you find in the lab.
> >> Further claims have been made supporting the notion that some
> >> magic is happening when so-called self-appointed "golden ears"
> >> make wild and unsubstantiated proclamations of one sort or
> >> another.
> >
> >A highly-charged prejudicial statement that you're entitled to make.
>
> Hardly,, read the pages of any one of a number of the high end
> rags which claim fantastic effects from pucks and magic bricks,
> then dismiss ALL criticism by saying things like "your system
> isn't of high-enough resolution," or, finally, "you can't hear."
> The nonsense promulgated by Dr. Diamond is a calssic case of
> backpedaling on a fantastic claim b essentially ascribing
> special properties and abilites to the claimant, and dismissing
> all oither criticism.
They aren't the only ones to "dismiss all criticisms," so why is that
suddenly such a bad thing?
>
>
> >> Well, maybe, but the PROPERTIES and BEHAVIOR of this were well
> >> known 100 years prior, again, see Helmholtz.
> >
> >Why, is there a left brain and right brain Heimholz effect?
>
> What "Helholtx effect?" What on earth are you talking about. ave
> you even read the book? Have you any idea what is described
> therein?
What "Helmholz effect" indeed. Is there any correlation between Helmholz's
research and the idea that people might hear differently according to the
way theat their brain is ordered?
> >> > But something, apart from placebo effects and preconditioning,
> >> >*might* be going on. That's all I'm saying. And it may turn
> >> >out that they aren't.
> >>
> >> Precisely.
> >
> >Even though you're being sarcastic, you don't know how right you are.
So what is this "something" other than those two things that I cited are you
referring to?
> No, I am NOT being sarcastic, and your continued desire to put
> your spin on my viewpoint is dishonest.
>
> >> However, if you do NOT do ANYTHING to eliminate the effects of
> >> placebo and preconditioning, HOW WILL YOU EVER KNOW IF THERE IS
> >> SOMETHING THERE?
> >
> >Hey, keep testing.
>
> And? Or is that the best you can do?
What other alternative is there?
> >> The claims made be many that they don not need controls in
> >> listening to discover things are essentially making the arrogant
> >> claim that they are perfect. Sorry, but that century of research
> >> has pointed out VERY CLEARLY that hearing is FAR from perfect
> >> and is very EASILY fooled.
> >
> >No shit. That's what I've been saying all along. So what makes you
> >think that such claims like zip cord offers a transparent sound and you
> >can't better it isn't subject to the same frailty of the senses?
>
> Why, once cagin, do you claim to know what I think? I suggest
> you deal with what YOU think and stop telling the rest of the
> world what THEY think. So far, you demonstrated almost no
> success at it.
As I wish that those who claim otherwise would do. Otherwise I wouldn't be
arguing so strongly (which you seem to be overly defensive about <shrug>.
Why is it when somebody "claims" that they hear something, that the
objectivists are quick to say that they can't be hearing what they're
hearing? It's a similar thing that you're accusing me of.
> >> That much we do know VERY well,
> >> despite the rabid, strident and very uninformed claims of many
> >> here and elsewhere in this industry to the contrary.
> >
> >Rabid seems to apply to both sides of the argument.
>
> Rabid, yes. But comments such as the "Helmholtz effect" do
> demonstrate that one side in this particular discussion does
> suffer from a deficit in information. Add to that the out and
> out misrepresemtation...
That "Helmholz Effect" is precisely what I was talking about. It doesn't
exist. Now his research isn't questioned - just your linkage to left brain
and right brain research.
I'd say, stay off the coffee. I think that Mr. Feng should worry about
*your* vociferousness, not mine...
bf...@ibm.net
dave weil wrote:
> Answers also apply to Feng's post.
> Richard D Pierce wrote:
(snip)
>
> Why is it the stock answer then? If the inference isn't there, then why
> make the statement in the first place?
> (snip)
> > No I do not, and you either misread or misrepresent what I
> > wrote.
>
> "The statement that the research into how hearing works dates
> >> back well over 100 years is absolutely demonstrable. And that
> >> statement is made to counter any number of fantastic,
> >> extraordinary and ludicrous claims about hearing often made in
> >> these parts."
>
> How have I misrepresented your words?
Please don't take offense. There is absolutely nothing
in Dicks quote that could be construed to mean everything
significant about auditory behavior is known.
He only makes the point that research into hearing and hearing
perception has been developing for well over a century. Oh yes,
his implication is that there's enough known to dispute
a fair number of "extraordinary and aludicrous claims," and
that, my friend, happens to be true.
(snip)
> You guys say, "We already know what we need to explain why esoteric cables
> don't offer any advantage over zip cord" for instance. JJ once told me that
> there are only 3 measurements that matter in cable sound (maybe 4, I can't
> remember exactly.) And he claims that these measurements have been known
> for years. Well, maybe they have.
Yes, that's true if you believe in the physics of electromagnetism.
> But maybe there's something else that
> explains *why* some poeple hear differences.
If there is no (and I mean zero) difference in the signal via one cable or another
the there is simply no stimulus that could be turned into an audible difference by
your hearing system and brain.
> I assumed that you were lumping me in the "fantastic, extraordinary, and
> ludicrous claims about hearing." Was I wrong?
Yes, as far as I can tell. Dick was speaking of these "fantastic" claims
in a general sense. He did not say anything to the effect of, "claims you made."
(snip)
> > >results. But you have to look at it from a different perspective. If
> > >the ear is fooled and auditory memory is flawed, and the brain has to
> > >compensate for a less than perfect organ,
The auditory periphery is not a less than perfect organ, from the standpoint of
a whole person. It simply is what it is, and the brain works with what it provides
to give us our hearing ability. It's philosophically incorrect to say it's
imperfect because it hasn't the same sensitivity at 1MHz as it does at 1kHz, or
that saturates above (roughly)125dB SPL, etc.
> As I have said, making it the basis of my argument. The brain might or
> might not correlate to what you find in the lab.
Depends on how you validate the lab measurements. If the lab measurements
were developed and then validated according to what people perceived, then
you are wrong.
(snip)
(snip)
John Feng
Paul Wagner
> >Hey, keep testing.
>
> And? Or is that the best you can do?
Let's try this one:
We have just discovered, in the "Question on Wires" string, that the
"tests" many DBT practicioners use in evaluating many components bear
little if any resemblance to usual contolled tests, in that they:
1/ skip the process of creating identical contol and variaable
conditions, by omitting equal-level verification BEFORE the variant is
introduced;
2/ "level-match" the control and variable components, thus guaranteeding
BOTH that wideband FR differences are eliminated, and partial-FR
differences are cut to a fraction of their actual variations; and
3/ having manipulated the variable and control to resemble each other
more than they actually do, and thus of course rendered those
differences inaudible, declare, when subjects cannot hear the
difference, that they "sound the same."
My suggestion would be:
TRY SOME ACTUAL TESTS FOLLOWING SCIENTIFICALLY-ESTABLISHED PROTOCOL.
--Paul Wagner--
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Then why is it whenever someone questions the state of our knowledge
>they always say something to the effect of, "The parameters of
>determining what is audible has been well-known for a hundred years.
>The significant research was done by Heimholz, et.al" implying that
>there's nothing of significance yet to be uncovered.
The problem is, Dave, that pointing out that someone, for instance
Helmholtz, originally showed somethin does simply NOT imply that there
is nothing left to be discovered.
It does, however suggest that research into some areas is likely to
be futile, especially since the testing of absolute threshhold (this
being something Helmholtz worked on) has been done, and redone, to a
fair-thee-well, and the results are, to put it kindly, pretty firm.
I have no idea why you seem to think that if we know 'a' and that
'not a' is wrong, why this means that 'b' is not yet left to
be discovered. It certainly is availabe to be discovered.
None the less, we can STILL dismiss 'not a'.
THAT is what goes on here all the time.
>All three of those are arguments for the idea that perhaps there's
>something else going on that isn't readily explained by reading test
>results.
But all three can be disproven, and easily so, even if we do NOT
know everything.
>> Further claims have been made supporting the notion that some
>> magic is happening when so-called self-appointed "golden ears"
>> make wild and unsubstantiated proclamations of one sort or
>> another.
>A highly-charged prejudicial statement that you're entitled to make.
Well, in fact, some of the claims I see here, and elsewhere, seem exactly
as Dick puts it. Some claims, however, seem quite well based. Do
bear in mind that the "all cables sound the same" kind of statement
is NOT an "objectivist" position, rather it is a straw man set forth
by subjectivists (and the occasional fringe element) for the purpose
of attacking objectivists.
>As apposed to bowing at the altar of science I suppose. Most of the
>objectivist claims (including yours) have a religious zeal that's
>scarely matched.
Actually, it's demonstrable that your use of the word "religious"
is ill-considered. Religion is neither testable of verifiable.
Objective statements, even if false, are both, and as such simply
can not even enter the realm of religion.
>Why, is there a left brain and right brain Heimholz effect?
Have you any idea of what question you just asked?
>"Hypothetical" things that are claimed to be heard (for whatever
>reason.) Who are you to question whether they hear these effects? Test
>for them, perhaps. But until you disqualify them, then you're just
>speaking "hypothetically" too.
Again, you don't understand. In a very real way, people DO "hear" them.
The point is that pure audition had nothing to do with the hearing.
This does not mean that people hallucinate, etc, it simply means that
the outcome is unrelated to pure audition.
>> > But something, apart from placebo effects and preconditioning,
>> >*might* be going on. That's all I'm saying. And it may turn
>> >out that they aren't.
>> Precisely.
>Even though you're being sarcastic, you don't know how right you are.
He's not being sarcastic, and by going to DBT, one can find out if
something is REALLY happening. That's how one proceeds, from
anectote to controlled test, to learning.
>Hey, keep testing.
That's how progress gets made.
>No shit. That's what I've been saying all along. So what makes you
>think that such claims like zip cord offers a transparent sound and you
>can't better it isn't subject to the same frailty of the senses?
Would you mind raising something other than this very tired,
completely scortched straw man, please?
Richard D Pierce
dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Sir, it is you and ONLY you that makes such an illogical leap.
>> Your "implication" is yours and your alone, and your are being
>> dishonest by accusing me or anyone else of YOUR implication.
>
>Why is it the stock answer then? If the inference isn't there, then why
>make the statement in the first place?
Sorry, this is YOUR strawman, YOU set it up, now YOU explain it.
The implication was NEVER, EVER there, not before you infered it
completely on your own. I never infered it, never intended it.
No where did I ever say there was complete knowledge. There is,
however, knowledge sufficient to completely refute some of the
completely ludicrous claims made in this forum and elsewhere.
There is enough knowledge to discount some of the claims made of
phemonenon claimed.
>> >And you say exactly what you claim not to say later in your tome, only
>> >in different words.
>>
>> No I do not, and you either misread or misrepresent what I
>> wrote.
>
>"The statement that the research into how hearing works dates
>>> back well over 100 years is absolutely demonstrable. And that
>>> statement is made to counter any number of fantastic,
>>> extraordinary and ludicrous claims about hearing often made in
>>> these parts."
>
>How have I misrepresented your words?
Because, NOWHERE did I say there was complete knowledge. Only
YOU said that, and therefore YOU should explain it, not me.
>> No, YOU made the claim: it's YOUR implication and if anyone is
>> wrong for doing so, it's YOU.
>
>You guys say, "We already know what we need to explain why esoteric cables
>don't offer any advantage over zip cord" for instance.
Please quote me exactly when I said that, otherwise, withdraw
your dishonest misrepresentation.
>JJ once told me that
>there are only 3 measurements that matter in cable sound (maybe 4, I can't
>remember exactly.) And he claims that these measurements have been known
>for years.
One can DEFINITELY say the following: if there is no difference
in the electrical signal between then outputs of two cables,
then there DOES NOT exist a difference signal that can provide
stimulus to the ear/brain system to trigger a different auditory
perception.
If you deny that, then not only can you claim there is no
difference between cables that measure identically, you are also
claiming that there MUST e a difference between a cable and
itself, because the same condition of idnentity exists.
Over and above that, I have NEVER said there is not an audible
difference between cables, and if you insist on saying so, you
are simply a liar.
>> >> 1. The human ear is capable of far higher resolution
>> >Which I haven't said...
>> >> 2. The human ear is not easily fooled
>> >Which I *certainly* haven't said...
>> >> 3. Auditory memory is essentially perfect.
>> >Which I also haven't said...
>>
>> Where, ANYWHERE did I say you did? Again, you make up words then
>> stick them in my mouth.
>
>I assumed that you were lumping me in the "fantastic, extraordinary, and
>ludicrous claims about hearing."
Your ASSUMED I said it, even though I did not. You INFERRED I
meant there was complete knowledge even though I never said it.
You ASSUMED I said there is no audible difference between
estoeric cable and zip cord even though the public record is
QUITE clear that I NEVER said such a thing.
Sir, you are either VERY forgetful, imagining things, or somehow
deliberatly distorting my words and creating words that I have
never spoken. Why?
> Was I wrong?
I would say the evidence that is sitting in your lap quite
defiintely says so.
>If my assumtion that you don't think my claims are as represented above,
>then I apologize. I guess my claims aren't so then. <g>
Sir, you ASSUME. I suggest you READ instead.
>> Sorry, but the vast majority of those auditory illusion effect
>> the ENTIRE hearing and comprehension process. Some of these
>> common illusion are so string that even when the subject is
>> fully aware of the illusion, the illusion remains.
>>
>> More precisely, one should say that the ear/brain are easily
>> fooled.
>
>As I have said, making it the basis of my argument. The brain might or
>might not correlate to what you find in the lab.
That is not only contradictory to your previous position, where
you stated that the brain must compensate for those illusory
behavior, but is a complete non sequitur.
>> Hardly,, read the pages of any one of a number of the high end
>> rags which claim fantastic effects from pucks and magic bricks,
>> then dismiss ALL criticism by saying things like "your system
>> isn't of high-enough resolution," or, finally, "you can't hear."
>> The nonsense promulgated by Dr. Diamond is a calssic case of
>> backpedaling on a fantastic claim b essentially ascribing
>> special properties and abilites to the claimant, and dismissing
>> all oither criticism.
>
>They aren't the only ones to "dismiss all criticisms," so why is that
>suddenly such a bad thing?
They are not "dismissed" as you claim. If you would, in fact,
look up the references, instead of ASSUMING what they say, for
example, in the Dr Diamond case, you would, in fact, see there
was a intense effort to duplicate the claimed results, first
using Diamond's techniques, then using others as well. (Diamond,
J. "Human Stress Provoked by Digitalized Recordings" dB Magazine
1981 Jan, also 66th AES convention, 1980 May, see also N.
Morgan, "Comments on "Human Stress Provoked by Digitalized
Recordings," JAES vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 613 1980 Sept, "Detroit
Tries Digital Test," News of the Sections, JAES vol. 29, no. 5,
1981 May, J. Diamond, "Comments on Stress Test," JAES vol. 29,
no. 10, pp. 749, 1981 Oct)
>> >> Well, maybe, but the PROPERTIES and BEHAVIOR of this were well
>> >> known 100 years prior, again, see Helmholtz.
>> >
>> >Why, is there a left brain and right brain Heimholz effect?
>>
>> What "Helholtx effect?" What on earth are you talking about. ave
>> you even read the book? Have you any idea what is described
>> therein?
>
>What "Helmholz effect" indeed.
Sir, the term "Helmholtz effect" is entirely of your invention.
I nor anyone else ever made mention of some "Helmholtz effect."
I was reffering to the lengthy research into auditory response
as described in Helmholtz's "On the Sensation of Tone," which is
a vast work describing a huge range of phenomenon.
>Is there any correlation between Helmholz's
>research and the idea that people might hear differently according to the
>way theat their brain is ordered?
Yes. Now, instead of ASSUMING stuff, as seems to be your want,
why don't you go out and READ Helmholtz, Munson, and MANY others
who HAVE, in fact, studied the human auditory system, and have
NOT ASSUMED things.
>> >> > But something, apart from placebo effects and preconditioning,
>> >> >*might* be going on. That's all I'm saying. And it may turn
>> >> >out that they aren't.
>> >>
>> >> Precisely.
>> >
>> >Even though you're being sarcastic, you don't know how right you are.
>> No, I am NOT being sarcastic, and your continued desire to put
>> your spin on my viewpoint is dishonest.
Again you duck the issue that you misrespresent the words of
others.
>> >> However, if you do NOT do ANYTHING to eliminate the effects of
>> >> placebo and preconditioning, HOW WILL YOU EVER KNOW IF THERE IS
>> >> SOMETHING THERE?
>> >Hey, keep testing.
>> And? Or is that the best you can do?
>What other alternative is there?
How about not engaging in sophist games, misrepresentation and
blind, sweeping assumption and, instead, look up the vast
amount of research?
>> Why, once cagin, do you claim to know what I think? I suggest
>> you deal with what YOU think and stop telling the rest of the
>> world what THEY think. So far, you demonstrated almost no
>> success at it.
>
>Why is it when somebody "claims" that they hear something, that the
>objectivists are quick to say that they can't be hearing what they're
>hearing? It's a similar thing that you're accusing me of.
First, when have I EVER said that someone was not hearing what
they claimed? Not your memory, rather, why don't you go back
through the last 15 years of first net.audio, then rec.audio,
and to the present and FIND where I said that.
And when you fail to, then what do you do: your strawman
argument is then useless.
>> Rabid, yes. But comments such as the "Helmholtz effect" do
>> demonstrate that one side in this particular discussion does
>> suffer from a deficit in information. Add to that the out and
>> out misrepresemtation...
>
>That "Helmholz Effect" is precisely what I was talking about.
Sir, you clearly haven't a clue as to what Helmholtz is
describing, and you insistance on using YOUR invention of a
mythic "Helmholtz effect" simply shows your dishonesty.
> Now his research isn't questioned - just your linkage to left
>brain and right brain research.
How would you know? You clearly have absolutely NO idea what you
are talking about. YOUR made up this nonsense term "Helmholtz
effect." YOu defend it, it's YOUR baby.
When you're done destroying THAT strawman, why not take a
breather and actually attempt to understand what he wrote about.
And, while you're at it, listen to a proper performance of
Tchaikowsky's Pathetique: HE read Helmholtz, y'know.
Brian L. McCarty
----------
In article <7m3hhg$5e9$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "John Busenitz"
<buse...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> What's absurd is the stupidity shown by this poster. No,
> perceptually-based codecs are based on years of research
> on psychoacoustics. It's not "a few geeks" that put it
> together, but well educated and expert people with MUCH
> more knowledge in this area than you.
Well, this "years of research" was for naught; two A/B tests of AES members
clearly showed that the perceptual codecs under review were easily audible,
and degraded the source unacceptably.
Seems we need a few MORE years of "research" before it should really be
considered a product. . .and by that time the need for "data reduced" audio
will no longer be necessary, due to continuing increases in bandwidth.
dave weil
endlessly. I will say this. I have no clue as to what Richard Pierce believes
about zip cord or what I have said or haven't said. I made some inferences
based on what he has written in these few posts regarding "fantastic claims"
which based on the "camps" on this NG, seemed reasonable. I don't really care
now "what" he believes and won't comment on them anymore since it seems he's
about to go into apopolexy.
Richard D Pierce wrote:
> In article <37863D8F...@mindspring.com>,
> dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> Sir, it is you and ONLY you that makes such an illogical leap.
> >> Your "implication" is yours and your alone, and your are being
> >> dishonest by accusing me or anyone else of YOUR implication.
> >
> >Why is it the stock answer then? If the inference isn't there, then why
> >make the statement in the first place?
>
<snipping>
> Sir, the term "Helmholtz effect" is entirely of your invention.
No shit. First, I said, "where is this "effect"...which was a way of saying
there *is* no such thing. I'm sorry you can't quite understand that.
> I nor anyone else ever made mention of some "Helmholtz effect."
> I was reffering to the lengthy research into auditory response
> as described in Helmholtz's "On the Sensation of Tone," which is
> a vast work describing a huge range of phenomenon.
I knew what you were talking about. I never claimed there was such an "effect"
if you go back and re-read the words. But I won't accuse you of "lying" or
misrepresenting my words as you have me. <shrug>
>
> >> >> > But something, apart from placebo effects and preconditioning,
> >> >> >*might* be going on. That's all I'm saying. And it may turn
> >> >> >out that they aren't.
> >> >>
> >> >> Precisely.
> >> >
> >> >Even though you're being sarcastic, you don't know how right you are.
> >> No, I am NOT being sarcastic, and your continued desire to put
> >> your spin on my viewpoint is dishonest.
>
> Again you duck the issue that you misrespresent the words of
> others.
Gee whiz. Since you seem to be screaming through much of this, I'm going to
assume that you're heard of hearing because you surely couldn't be rude I don't
think (here I go assuming again) YOUR SIMPLE STATEMENT SEEMED TO ME TO BE
SARCATIC. I COULD CERTAINLY BE READ THAT WAY CONSIDERING THE VIEWPOINT THAT
YOU HAVE PUT FORWARD. So you weren't being sarcastic. Fine. End of story.
> >> >> However, if you do NOT do ANYTHING to eliminate the effects of
> >> >> placebo and preconditioning, HOW WILL YOU EVER KNOW IF THERE IS
> >> >> SOMETHING THERE?
> >> >Hey, keep testing.
> >> And? Or is that the best you can do?
> >What other alternative is there?
>
> How about not engaging in sophist games, misrepresentation and
> blind, sweeping assumption and, instead, look up the vast
> amount of research?
>
> >> Why, once cagin, do you claim to know what I think? I suggest
> >> you deal with what YOU think and stop telling the rest of the
> >> world what THEY think. So far, you demonstrated almost no
> >> success at it.
> >
> >Why is it when somebody "claims" that they hear something, that the
> >objectivists are quick to say that they can't be hearing what they're
> >hearing? It's a similar thing that you're accusing me of.
>
> First, when have I EVER said that someone was not hearing what
> they claimed? Not your memory, rather, why don't you go back
> through the last 15 years of first net.audio, then rec.audio,
> and to the present and FIND where I said that.
When did I say *you* did? Find those words for me. Sounds like *you* are
doing what you accused me of doing "misrepresenting your position." I never
said "you" or "*all* objectivists (assuming again that you might fall into that
"vague" camp.") See how silly all that nitpicking sounds? Well, that's how
all of your ranting sounds to me, which is why I didn't address most of it.
Sir, *your* sophstry is on a pretty high level.
> >> Rabid, yes. But comments such as the "Helmholtz effect" do
> >> demonstrate that one side in this particular discussion does
> >> suffer from a deficit in information. Add to that the out and
> >> out misrepresemtation...
> >
> >That "Helmholz Effect" is precisely what I was talking about.
>
> Sir, you clearly haven't a clue as to what Helmholtz is
> describing, and you insistance on using YOUR invention of a
> mythic "Helmholtz effect" simply shows your dishonesty.
Don't you get it? <sigh> I said something about asking whether there was a
Left brained right brained Heimholz effect (mainly because nobody even had a
clue about that until the early 60s.) Clearly there isn't. You sure fling
words like dishonesty around blithely don't you?
>
> > Now his research isn't questioned - just your linkage to left
> >brain and right brain research.
>
> How would you know? You clearly have absolutely NO idea what you
> are talking about. YOUR made up this nonsense term "Helmholtz
> effect." YOu defend it, it's YOUR baby.
Geez. Read the damn sentance again, in context. I doubt you'll still get it
though.
> When you're done destroying THAT strawman, why not take a
> breather and actually attempt to understand what he wrote about.
I'm not the one who needs to take a breather (or get my blood preassure
checked.)
<end of series>
dave weil
Dick is going through what you and I went through before. I have never meant any
disrespect and haven't meant to misrepresent anyone or "lie" about things. I
didn't respond to anything below because they seem like fair statements. I will
say that I've tried not to hang that "all cables sound the same" argument on the
objectivists for a long time (since it was pointed out to me that that's not what
they have said, which was about day 5 on here) Dick accused me of saying it and
I'm not going to get all wound up by pointing out that I never said that during
this exchange, nor accused *him* of saying it. And I've tried to pose the zip
cord question as it's been presented. Not, that zip cord sounds like everything
else or that it's "better" that anything else out there. I've tried to be careful
of my wording. But I won't drag out *why* I question it.
Anyway, thanks again.
"jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist" wrote:
> In article <37862531...@mindspring.com>,
> dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Then why is it whenever someone questions the state of our knowledge
> >they always say something to the effect of, "The parameters of
> >determining what is audible has been well-known for a hundred years.
> >The significant research was done by Heimholz, et.al" implying that
> >there's nothing of significance yet to be uncovered.
>
> The problem is, Dave, that pointing out that someone, for instance
> Helmholtz, originally showed somethin does simply NOT imply that there
> is nothing left to be discovered.
>
> It does, however suggest that research into some areas is likely to
> be futile, especially since the testing of absolute threshhold (this
> being something Helmholtz worked on) has been done, and redone, to a
> fair-thee-well, and the results are, to put it kindly, pretty firm.
>
> I have no idea why you seem to think that if we know 'a' and that
> 'not a' is wrong, why this means that 'b' is not yet left to
> be discovered. It certainly is availabe to be discovered.
> None the less, we can STILL dismiss 'not a'.
>
> THAT is what goes on here all the time.
>
> >All three of those are arguments for the idea that perhaps there's
> >something else going on that isn't readily explained by reading test
> >results.
> But all three can be disproven, and easily so, even if we do NOT
> know everything.
>
> >> Further claims have been made supporting the notion that some
> >> magic is happening when so-called self-appointed "golden ears"
> >> make wild and unsubstantiated proclamations of one sort or
> >> another.
>
> >A highly-charged prejudicial statement that you're entitled to make.
>
> Well, in fact, some of the claims I see here, and elsewhere, seem exactly
> as Dick puts it. Some claims, however, seem quite well based. Do
> bear in mind that the "all cables sound the same" kind of statement
> is NOT an "objectivist" position, rather it is a straw man set forth
> by subjectivists (and the occasional fringe element) for the purpose
> of attacking objectivists.
>
> >As apposed to bowing at the altar of science I suppose. Most of the
> >objectivist claims (including yours) have a religious zeal that's
> >scarely matched.
>
> Actually, it's demonstrable that your use of the word "religious"
> is ill-considered. Religion is neither testable of verifiable.
> Objective statements, even if false, are both, and as such simply
> can not even enter the realm of religion.
>
> >Why, is there a left brain and right brain Heimholz effect?
> Have you any idea of what question you just asked?
>
> >"Hypothetical" things that are claimed to be heard (for whatever
> >reason.) Who are you to question whether they hear these effects? Test
> >for them, perhaps. But until you disqualify them, then you're just
> >speaking "hypothetically" too.
>
> Again, you don't understand. In a very real way, people DO "hear" them.
> The point is that pure audition had nothing to do with the hearing.
> This does not mean that people hallucinate, etc, it simply means that
> the outcome is unrelated to pure audition.
>
> >> > But something, apart from placebo effects and preconditioning,
> >> >*might* be going on. That's all I'm saying. And it may turn
> >> >out that they aren't.
>
> >> Precisely.
>
> >Even though you're being sarcastic, you don't know how right you are.
>
> He's not being sarcastic, and by going to DBT, one can find out if
> something is REALLY happening. That's how one proceeds, from
> anectote to controlled test, to learning.
>
> >Hey, keep testing.
>
> That's how progress gets made.
>
> >No shit. That's what I've been saying all along. So what makes you
> >think that such claims like zip cord offers a transparent sound and you
> >can't better it isn't subject to the same frailty of the senses?
>
dav...@mindspring.com
shla...@aol.com (ShLampen) wrote:
> The analog cable handles a frequency range of 20 Hz to 20 kHz.
> The digital cable bandwidth is a bellcurve to 3.072 MHz (48 kHz
sampling) or
> 6.144 MHz (96 kHz sampling),
>
This is sort of off the subject, but what is the best cable to use
for transmitting an SVHS signal? I seem to be getting quite nasty
signal degradation using normal stock SVHS cabling, and was considering
buying 500 feet of belden cable and sticking some connectors on the end.
Seems like anything coax should be better than thin unshielded garbage
that they sell in the store.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Paul Wagner
(moi included...) we'd have a lot more discussing...
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist wrote:
>
> In article <37862531...@mindspring.com>,
> dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Then why is it whenever someone questions the state of our knowledge
> >they always say something to the effect of, "The parameters of
> >determining what is audible has been well-known for a hundred years.
> >The significant research was done by Heimholz, et.al" implying that
> >there's nothing of significance yet to be uncovered.
>
> The problem is, Dave, that pointing out that someone, for instance
> Helmholtz, originally showed somethin does simply NOT imply that there
> is nothing left to be discovered.
>
> It does, however suggest that research into some areas is likely to
> be futile, especially since the testing of absolute threshhold (this
> being something Helmholtz worked on) has been done, and redone, to a
> fair-thee-well, and the results are, to put it kindly, pretty firm.
>
> I have no idea why you seem to think that if we know 'a' and that
> 'not a' is wrong, why this means that 'b' is not yet left to
> be discovered. It certainly is availabe to be discovered.
> None the less, we can STILL dismiss 'not a'.
>
> THAT is what goes on here all the time.
>
> >All three of those are arguments for the idea that perhaps there's
> >something else going on that isn't readily explained by reading test
> >results.
> But all three can be disproven, and easily so, even if we do NOT
> know everything.
>
> >> Further claims have been made supporting the notion that some
> >> magic is happening when so-called self-appointed "golden ears"
> >> make wild and unsubstantiated proclamations of one sort or
> >> another.
>
> >A highly-charged prejudicial statement that you're entitled to make.
>
> Well, in fact, some of the claims I see here, and elsewhere, seem exactly
> as Dick puts it. Some claims, however, seem quite well based. Do
> bear in mind that the "all cables sound the same" kind of statement
> is NOT an "objectivist" position, rather it is a straw man set forth
> by subjectivists (and the occasional fringe element) for the purpose
> of attacking objectivists.
>
> >As apposed to bowing at the altar of science I suppose. Most of the
> >objectivist claims (including yours) have a religious zeal that's
> >scarely matched.
>
> Actually, it's demonstrable that your use of the word "religious"
> is ill-considered. Religion is neither testable of verifiable.
> Objective statements, even if false, are both, and as such simply
> can not even enter the realm of religion.
>
> >Why, is there a left brain and right brain Heimholz effect?
> Have you any idea of what question you just asked?
>
> >"Hypothetical" things that are claimed to be heard (for whatever
> >reason.) Who are you to question whether they hear these effects? Test
> >for them, perhaps. But until you disqualify them, then you're just
> >speaking "hypothetically" too.
>
> Again, you don't understand. In a very real way, people DO "hear" them.
> The point is that pure audition had nothing to do with the hearing.
> This does not mean that people hallucinate, etc, it simply means that
> the outcome is unrelated to pure audition.
>
> >> > But something, apart from placebo effects and preconditioning,
> >> >*might* be going on. That's all I'm saying. And it may turn
> >> >out that they aren't.
>
> >> Precisely.
>
> >Even though you're being sarcastic, you don't know how right you are.
>
> He's not being sarcastic, and by going to DBT, one can find out if
> something is REALLY happening. That's how one proceeds, from
> anectote to controlled test, to learning.
>
> >Hey, keep testing.
>
> That's how progress gets made.
>
> >No shit. That's what I've been saying all along. So what makes you
> >think that such claims like zip cord offers a transparent sound and you
> >can't better it isn't subject to the same frailty of the senses?
>
Rob
> expensive cables. Although you can make an argument that subtle
> distortions are introduced by a cheap analog cable, this doesn't apply
> to digital data. A digital cable only carries pulses of high or low
> voltages which represent logic one's and zero's. As long all the bits
> coming out the other end of the cable are the same as the ones going in,
> the signal is absolutely identical. To say otherwise would be like
> saying Shakespeare sounds worse when read from a photo copy of a book
> than when read from a page he wrote personally. As long as all the
> letters are readable, it makes no difference. Even if there is some
> distortion in the electrical signals, it won't hurt the signal as long
> as the reciever can reliably detect the bits.
I agree with you completely.
People have argued that less than ideal cable can cause jitter - accurate
data arriving, but at the wrong time. I tend to disagree, and offer the
following:
1) Digital data transfer algorithms are buffered to protect against timing
inaccuracies like that. They have been since the original serial port.
It's highly doubtful that they would overlook a simple concept like this for
something as advanced as digital audio.
2) The Dolby Digital signal is a tightly compressed bitstream that has to be
decompressed at the other end. If even ONE bit is out of order or "timed
incorrectly", the entire signal will likely get NOTICEABLY garbled.
I think people are confusing a digital audio cable with the output of a
standard CD player. CD players are subject to jitter, frequently-masked
(and generally imperceptable) data correction, and all of the "bad things"
that people seem to be associating with digital audio cable.
Arny Krüger
dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3785E3C1...@mindspring.com...
>
> As far as I know, there are something like 25 tests (as claimed by Arny)
that have been done
> (amps, cables, etc.) Doens't seem like a lot to me. Sure, you can poll
1000 people and get
> statistical results. But that's why polls are often wrong <g>.
I've never said that there were only 25 tests that people have done.
> The point is that if two sets of people can actually hear two events so
differently, then
> something is going on that we don't quite understand.
What is mysterious about a simple difference of opinions?
>Could this 95% of the brains functions that
> we don't understand have something to do with these perceived differences
that some claim (and
> some claim *not*) to hear. Is it any surprise that engineers would
generally fall into the "left
> brain" category?
I suggest that you back up a step or 10 and first consider whether or not
the perceptions that you are dwelling on are reliable or not.
Jim Seymour
"Jim Howard" <jn...@REMOVE.jump.net> writes:
>
[snip]
>
> Has consumer union or any similar neutral body done real double blind tests
> on audio cables?
Please note that, in general terms, I agree with your position.
That for speaker wire, good quality wire, in good condition :-),
properly terminated, and of adequate size should be sufficient.
Same for interconnects: good quality cable with adequate
characteristics (such as Belden 1505A), terminated with good
quality, gold-plated connectors ought to be adequate.
That being said: IME, Consumers Reports is not a publication
that I would tend to accept as the "last word" in discussing
hi-end audio issues. I've too many times found myself and
others in disagreement with their conclusions and ratings.
Consider: these people often down-grade one product over another
simply because they don't like the remote??? Even when the
down-graded product is better in other, more important aspects.
Like receiver performance or video quality. Gimme a break.
I subscribe to CR. And I value their reports. But they must
always be taken with a grain of salt, IMO.
Regards,
Jim
--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
jsey...@jimsun.LinxNet.com | http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
http://home.msen.com/~jimsun | http://www.trustcenter.de/cgi-bin/SearchCert.cgi
dave weil
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
> dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3785E3C1...@mindspring.com...
> >
> > As far as I know, there are something like 25 tests (as claimed by Arny)
> that have been done
> > (amps, cables, etc.) Doens't seem like a lot to me. Sure, you can poll
> 1000 people and get
> > statistical results. But that's why polls are often wrong <g>.
>
> I've never said that there were only 25 tests that people have done.
I tried to find the reference and couldn't but one time I mentioned something
about not enough tests being done and you mentioned there had been somewhere
around 25 of them. Perhaps I'm remembering incorrectly?
>
>
> > The point is that if two sets of people can actually hear two events so
> differently, then
> > something is going on that we don't quite understand.
>
> What is mysterious about a simple difference of opinions?
Nothing. If we hear things differently then so be it. And we're not talking
about subjective things like "pace" or "transparency" etc. We're talking about
actually the brain reconstructing the data differently according to
hemispherical dominance (*if* it's true) But it might go a ways in explaining
why *I* hear differences and you don't (theoretically.) I suggest you that if
you support this notion, as you seem to, then you might be careful about making
claims obout zip cord vs. "high-end" cables for the entire population for
instance.
> >Could this 95% of the brains functions that
> > we don't understand have something to do with these perceived differences
> that some claim (and
> > some claim *not*) to hear. Is it any surprise that engineers would
> generally fall into the "left
> > brain" category?
>
> I suggest that you back up a step or 10 and first consider whether or not
> the perceptions that you are dwelling on are reliable or not.
*That's* my point. Which means that the perceptions that you use in
interpreting the test data is a shifting sand dune too.
Justus
cables?
There's a bunch of louzy research out there, and conclusions made by
authors don't always reflect the data correctly ( as I had to notice
on one blind amp test), hence I'd like to decide for myself.
Also, I'm interested in any blind test on audio equipment written up,
esp cd-players and amps.
Maybe we should talk about these refs, once everyone involved in these
discussions has read them. Now, wouldn't that be nice!
Thanks.
jus...@udel.edu
Arny Krüger
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
> dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3785E3C1...@mindspring.com...
> >
> > As far as I know, there are something like 25 tests (as claimed by Arny)
> that have been done
> > (amps, cables, etc.) Doens't seem like a lot to me. Sure, you can poll
> 1000 people and get
> > statistical results. But that's why polls are often wrong <g>.
>
> I've never said that there were only 25 tests that people have done.
>I tried to find the reference and couldn't but one time I mentioned
something
about not enough tests being done and you mentioned there had been somewhere
around 25 of them. Perhaps I'm remembering incorrectly?
ABX tests are going on all the time. Just before I went on vacation I was
involved in a run of maybe a dozen or more that were done in support of a
paper on loudspeaker distortion for the NY AES, for example.
> The point is that if two sets of people can actually hear two events so
> differently, then
> > something is going on that we don't quite understand.
>
> What is mysterious about a simple difference of opinions?
>Nothing. If we hear things differently then so be it. And we're not
talking
about subjective things like "pace" or "transparency" etc. We're talking
about
actually the brain reconstructing the data differently according to
hemispherical dominance (*if* it's true) But it might go a ways in
explaining
why *I* hear differences and you don't (theoretically.) I suggest you that
if
you support this notion, as you seem to, then you might be careful about
making
claims obout zip cord vs. "high-end" cables for the entire population for
instance.
There are two different issues here. One relates to what we subjectively
perceive and the other relates to whether we perceive a given stimulus or
not.
Given that two people can both hear an audible stimulus, they may perceieve
it differently. They may each perceive it reliably for themselves, but their
reactions may be different when compared to each other.
OTOH, any acoustic stimulus that has less energy associted with it at every
audible frequency, than the normal thermal motion of air molecules, just
won't be heard by anybody. That's quite reliable and unequivocal, and it is
the same for everybody.
To put this in perspective, what reveiewers in ragazines like SP, TAS, &
HFN&RR claim to hear, if quantifiable, are often several orders of magnitude
(powers of 10) LESS than the normal thermal motion of air molecules.
Many other things they claim to hear just can't be quantified at all because
they are so specious.
dave weil
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
> > The point is that if two sets of people can actually hear two events so
> > differently, then
> > > something is going on that we don't quite understand.
> >
> > What is mysterious about a simple difference of opinions?
>
> >Nothing. If we hear things differently then so be it. And we're not
> talking
> about subjective things like "pace" or "transparency" etc. We're talking
> about
> actually the brain reconstructing the data differently according to
> hemispherical dominance (*if* it's true) But it might go a ways in
> explaining
> why *I* hear differences and you don't (theoretically.) I suggest you that
> if
> you support this notion, as you seem to, then you might be careful about
> making
> claims obout zip cord vs. "high-end" cables for the entire population for
> instance.
>
> There are two different issues here. One relates to what we subjectively
> perceive and the other relates to whether we perceive a given stimulus or
> not.
I would maintain that it's a moot point unless you want to separate what you
*actually* hear from what you *should* hear according to the measurements as you
interpret them.
> Given that two people can both hear an audible stimulus, they may perceieve
> it differently. They may each perceive it reliably for themselves, but their
> reactions may be different when compared to each other.
Bingo. That's why I think it's rather impudent to say that zip cord is
"sufficiently transparent" in comparison with "high-end cable" when in fact it
may or may not be according to individual cases.
> OTOH, any acoustic stimulus that has less energy associted with it at every
> audible frequency, than the normal thermal motion of air molecules, just
> won't be heard by anybody. That's quite reliable and unequivocal, and it is
> the same for everybody.
>
> To put this in perspective, what reveiewers in ragazines like SP, TAS, &
> HFN&RR claim to hear, if quantifiable, are often several orders of magnitude
> (powers of 10) LESS than the normal thermal motion of air molecules.
Are they now?
> Many other things they claim to hear just can't be quantified at all because
> they are so specious.
Perhaps you don't know *how* to quantify them because it's the brain in action,
not the receptor necessarily. Apparently the brain doesn't always treat the
data in a logical, computer-like fashion. Otherwise, we'd all have instant
recall and the same intelligence.
Arny Krüger
Rob <pl...@removemeearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7m9pgr$dsa$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > It's no surprise no one could tell the difference between the cheap and
> > expensive cables. Although you can make an argument that subtle
> > distortions are introduced by a cheap analog cable, this doesn't apply
> > to digital data. A digital cable only carries pulses of high or low
> > voltages which represent logic one's and zero's. As long all the bits
> > coming out the other end of the cable are the same as the ones going in,
> > the signal is absolutely identical. To say otherwise would be like
> > saying Shakespeare sounds worse when read from a photo copy of a book
> > than when read from a page he wrote personally. As long as all the
> > letters are readable, it makes no difference. Even if there is some
> > distortion in the electrical signals, it won't hurt the signal as long
> > as the reciever can reliably detect the bits.
>
> I agree with you completely.
>
> People have argued that less than ideal cable can cause jitter - accurate
> data arriving, but at the wrong time. I tend to disagree, and offer the
> following:
>
> 1) Digital data transfer algorithms are buffered to protect against timing
> inaccuracies like that. They have been since the original serial port.
> It's highly doubtful that they would overlook a simple concept like this
for
> something as advanced as digital audio.
The literature seems to agree with you, with a twist. The recent AES paper
on the topic from Dolby labs pointed out that if data is jittered enough to
be audible on music, it also is virging on having so much jitter that
error-free reception is difficult or impossible.
> 2) The Dolby Digital signal is a tightly compressed bitstream that has to
be
> decompressed at the other end. If even ONE bit is out of order or "timed
> incorrectly", the entire signal will likely get NOTICEABLY garbled.
The decoders I've tested just mute when this happens. I had to go way out of
my way to make it happen in my tests.
> I think people are confusing a digital audio cable with the output of a
> standard CD player. CD players are subject to jitter, frequently-masked
> (and generally imperceptable) data correction, and all of the "bad things"
> that people seem to be associating with digital audio cable.
Actually, a proper CD player has a buffered data stream and removes
considerable jitter in the signal from the optical pickup as a matter of
normal operation. In my tests, the usual source of jitter seemed to be the
DAC clock, and that usually traced back to poor power supply design. Again,
heroic power supplies are not required for low jitter, but some slight
attention to detail is.
Arny Krüger
Flap Jack <n...@all.com> wrote in message
news:378b22b2...@NEWS.SUPERNEWS.COM...
> The conclusion is that it is a waste of time to argue for more than a
> minute with those that hold their beliefs strongly.
True, if your goal is to change their mind.
> This is even when faced with facts.
Especially, when faced with facts. The people who present those facts are
dismissed as "liars".
> The most you can hope to do is educate.
Exactly, particularly the newbies who have not succombed to addictive forces
in the marketplace.
> If the highly suggestible sheep want to spend hundreds on premium A/V
cable,
> at least the money is buyng them piece of mind.
But that peace of mind can be short-lived or elusive for them. Once they
jump from technology to magic people can easily be swayed by a "holy man" or
other presumed authority who says that the cables you have now are trash,
have been eclipsed by the discovery of new magic, and you need to run right
out and buy the new ones.
According to a recent article in TAS, specialty audio magazines require
exceptional advertising rates to prosper. Advertisers can only afford to
advertise in specialty audio magaizines if they are selling high priced
equipment with low cost of sales. The easiest way to do this is to convince
readers to churn their systems by buying new equipment before the old
equipment has obsolesced in the conventional sense.
The final coup was when the specialty audio market manipulators hit on
coming out with cables that are so expensive that almost nobody can afford
them. Now, anything that most "true believers" actually buy is an fixed in
their minds at the time of purchase as an economic compromise. They pine for
the day when they can move up the next rung of the economic ladder to audio
nirvana.
This same basic strategy has worked in religions and fraternal organizations
for 100's, if not 1,000's of years.
Brian L. McCarty
----------
In article <7m3hhg$5e9$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "John Busenitz"
<buse...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> What's absurd is the stupidity shown by this poster. No,
> perceptually-based codecs are based on years of research
> on psychoacoustics. It's not "a few geeks" that put it
> together, but well educated and expert people with MUCH
> more knowledge in this area than you.
If there was so much "research" supporting the perceptual coders, why are
they so obviously bad?
Paul Dormer
>I suggest that you back up a step or 10 and first consider whether or not
>the perceptions that you are dwelling on are reliable or not.
Reliable in what context?
Paul Dormer Me...@clara.net
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sound Design, Editing, Mastering
Arny Krüger
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
> > The point is that if two sets of people can actually hear two events so
> > differently, then
> > > something is going on that we don't quite understand.
> >
> > What is mysterious about a simple difference of opinions?
>
> >Nothing. If we hear things differently then so be it. And we're not
talking
> about subjective things like "pace" or "transparency" etc. We're talking
about
> actually the brain reconstructing the data differently according to
> hemispherical dominance (*if* it's true) But it might go a ways in
> explaining why *I* hear differences and you don't (theoretically.) I
suggest you that if
> you support this notion, as you seem to, then you might be careful about
> making > claims obout zip cord vs. "high-end" cables for the entire
population for
> instance.
When the difference between two sounds drops below what it takes for the
actual mechanism of the ear (before the brain) to register a difference,
then it is possible to make reasonable claims "...about zip cord vs.
"high-end" cables for the entire population for instance."
> There are two different issues here. One relates to what we subjectively
> perceive and the other relates to whether we perceive a given stimulus or
> not.
There is also the issue of what stimuli are as small that they never reach
the nerve that goes from the ear to the brain.
>I would maintain that it's a moot point unless you want to separate what
you
>*actually* hear from what you *should* hear according to the measurements
as you
>interpret them.
There is simply no way, for example, that readily-measurable FR differences
well below the thresholds of audibility are reliably heard by anybody. When
they approach the thresholds, then there are variations among individuals in
terms of whether or not they are heard. When they are well above the
thresholds, then virtually everybody hears them. It's as simple as that. The
FR tolerance usually used for establishing that FR is NOT the source of an
audible difference is usually 0.1 dB. The actual threshold, under ideal
conditions, is more like 0.2 or 0.3 dB. OTOH, measurable differences in FR
due to interconnects and speaker wires are easy to hold well below 0.1 dB.
> Given that two people can both hear an audible stimulus, they may
perceieve
> it differently. They may each perceive it reliably for themselves, but
their
> reactions may be different when compared to each other.
When their brains don't receive any difference in stimulus at all, because
the ear can't resolve the difference into differing nerve impulses, then
people can reasonably be expected to perceive them as being the same.
However, human perception is not all that reliable, and people will perceive
differences when there simply are none. This is why we need controls on
listening tests and statistical testing of listener responses.
>Bingo. That's why I think it's rather impudent to say that zip cord is
"sufficiently transparent" in comparison with "high-end cable" when in fact
it may or may not be according to individual cases.
When the differences are so small that the listener's brain doesn't receive
differening stimuli, then its easy to say that "...that zip cord is
'sufficiently transparent" in comparison with "high-end cable' .
>> OTOH, any acoustic stimulus that has less energy associted with it at
every audible frequency, than the normal thermal motion of air molecules,
just won't be heard by anybody. That's quite reliable and unequivocal, and
it is the same for everybody.
>> To put this in perspective, what reveiewers in ragazines like SP, TAS, &
HFN&RR claim to hear, if quantifiable, are often several orders of magnitude
(powers of 10) LESS than the normal thermal motion of air molecules.
>Are they now?
Sure, in virtually every issue they print.
>> Many other things they claim to hear just can't be quantified at all
because they are so specious.
>Perhaps you don't know *how* to quantify them because it's the brain in
action, not the receptor necessarily.
The receptor has to provide differening signals to the brain. If the
differences are so small that this does not happen, then its all over,
right?
> Apparently the brain doesn't always treat the data in a logical,
computer-like fashion.
Sure, it has a TREMENDIOUS tendency to perceive differences when there
absolutely are none, for one example.
>Otherwise, we'd all have instant recall and the same intelligence.
The receptor has to provide differening signals to the brain. If the
differences are so small that this does not happen, then its all over,
right?
> > >Could this 95% of the brains functions that
> > > we don't understand have something to do with these perceived
> differences
> > that some claim (and
> > > some claim *not*) to hear. Is it any surprise that engineers would
> > generally fall into the "left
> > > brain" category?
> >
> > I suggest that you back up a step or 10 and first consider whether or
not the perceptions that you are dwelling on are reliable or not.
> *That's* my point. Which means that the perceptions that you use in
interpreting the test data is a shifting sand dune too.
When listener's brains don't receive any difference in stimulus at all,
because the ear can't resolve the difference into differing nerve impulses,
then people could reasonably be expected to perceive them as being the
same. However, human perception is not all that reliable, and people will
perceive differences when there simply are none. You can count on that
happening even when the differences are demonstrably non-existant. This is
why we need controls on listening tests and statistical testing of listener
responses.
Arny Krüger
Paul Dormer <me...@clara.net> wrote in message
news:37f81f1c...@news.clara.net...
> "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> >I suggest that you back up a step or 10 and first consider whether or not
> >the perceptions that you are dwelling on are reliable or not.
>
Ordinary statisitcal tests involving "just listening", and not listening and
seeing.
Randall Bradley
Flap Jack <n...@all.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Jul 1999 05:43:28 -0400, nite...@voicenet.com (Barry Mann)
>wrote:
>
>....snip...
>>A large number of people claim to be able to hear differences in cables,
>....snip...
>>obvious conclusion is that the test subjects were deluded
>,,,snip
>
>Barry,
>I'm speaking here as a statistician that has worked for 22 years in
>experimental design labs and on clinical studies. Including a lot of
>double blind studies.
>Flap Jack.
>
>How else can you explain:
>
>1. People who swear that their cars run noticeably better on high test
>gas. Over years of testing, the petroleum industry could not produce
>one speck of evidence that putting high test in an engine designed for
>regular makes it run better. And this was at the risk of loosing
>billions in revenue marketing mid-grade and high test;
>
This is not correct. Especially in the days before computer controlled
fuel and ignition, a high test fuel could improve engine performance
depending upon how the car was tuned and timed. IT also depended to
some degree upon the carburation settings with respect to the other
factors mentioned.
High test could eliminate "engine knock" at low rpm/high load
situations, for example.
_-_-randy
BEAR Labs
Steve Zipser
says...
Randy:
I remember running my old BMW 320 with twin Weber DCOE40's, and I ran
with very rich jets, and I ran high test, and I would advance the timing
asfaras possible till it knocked - and then I'd back it off by a dgree or
twwo and that sucker ran like stink! That aerodynamic brick did 120 on
the top end, and you better believe a higher octan fuel sure made a
difference. Just like better cables, CD Players, and amplifiers do ;-)
This was well after we all moved outta the Bronx!
Cheers
Zip
--
Sunshine Stereo,Inc http://sunshinestereo.com Tel: 305-757-9358
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores, FL 33138 Fax: 305-757-1367
Conrad Johnson Spectron Eggleston Parasound Entech Gallo Davis Entech Sonance
Audible Illusions Straightwire Niles Camelot Faroudja Rega Benz-Micro Runco NHT
Dunlavy Lexicon Zenith INTEQ Mordaunt-Short EAD CleanLines ESP Monster Seleco
Nakamichi Miranda Solid Steel Oracle Salamander Audio Logic PASS Labs DVDO NEAR
Stewart Pinkerton
>I remember running my old BMW 320 with twin Weber DCOE40's, and I ran
>with very rich jets, and I ran high test, and I would advance the timing
>asfaras possible till it knocked - and then I'd back it off by a dgree or
>twwo and that sucker ran like stink! That aerodynamic brick did 120 on
>the top end, and you better believe a higher octan fuel sure made a
>difference. Just like better cables, CD Players, and amplifiers do ;-)
Gee, I almost believed the 120 until you put that last bullshit
sentence in - I guess you put smaller rolling radius tires on that
sucker at the same time you changed the carbs................
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Steve Zipser
pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk says...
> z...@sunshinestereo.com (Steve Zipser) writes:
>
> >I remember running my old BMW 320 with twin Weber DCOE40's, and I ran
> >with very rich jets, and I ran high test, and I would advance the timing
> >asfaras possible till it knocked - and then I'd back it off by a dgree or
> >twwo and that sucker ran like stink! That aerodynamic brick did 120 on
>
> Gee, I almost believed the 120 until you put that last bullshit
> sentence in - I guess you put smaller rolling radius tires on that
> sucker at the same time you changed the carbs................
Actually I ran 195/50/15 Pheonix Stahlflex in front and 205/50/15
Stahlflex on the rears. I later changed to Comp T/A's and then Goodyear
NCT's - same size.
I also had a Transistor Ignition installed, and Stahl Headers, larger
front sway bar and a rear swaybar - and Progressive rate Bilsteins in
front with adjustable Konis in the rear and progressive rate springs all
around. Oh, and an airdamn in front ;-)
It really was a fun tossable car. I took it to a drivers school at Lime
Rock and that was one of the most fun things I've ever done in my life.
I used to autocross that sucker at BMWCCA events.
All this made a difference! Just like better cables, connectors, DACs,
and amps ;-)
jas...@my-deja.com
Zip, weren't you bitchin' earlier about somebody posting non-audio
stuff?
<spam snip>
Jason O.
Randall Bradley
Everything does *not* sound the same.
Some people can literally *hear* better than others - 2 main reasons;
1) better mechanics/less wear to the ear mechanisms
2) better brain processing for sounds
This is self-evident.
All electronics do NOT sound identical - regardless of how low of a
measured distortion they have. And, regardless of what certain very
knowledgeable individuals espouse in the ngs, amps with different
damping factors have difference*s* in subjective bass quality with
*most* speaker systems.
What this discussion really boils down to is two main points:
1) what *measurable* parameters, at what "levels" are
perceptable, in what circumstances to a statistical majority
(mean, average, whatever...) of listeners
and,
2) how do *people* actually listen? the processing in the brain
and how that effects perception, subjective "feel", and how
what *TEST* protocols will interact with "brain processing of
sound" are the sorts of things that are "wild cards" in this
discussion.
I'd posit that for 2) above, not enough is known yet to be *able* to
reliably draw conclusions from the usual sorts of tests that are used
at this time to detect "differences reliably."
That is the tests show what they show, but they do not show that these
tests do not have an effect on the *way* that the brain processes sound and thus causes unintended skews in the results.
See Shrodinger's Cat... :)
Anyone who has the answers to the above can go straight to the ead of
the class...
Until such time as all of these issues are clearly resolved beyond
reasonable doubt or better, face it, it is still a crap shoot. SO,
*if* it *sounds* better to YOU, then it *is* better for *YOU*.
BTW, no one is going to listen down to the molecular motion of the air,
your heart, breathing and other body noises are going to drown that
out in a deafening way.
_-_-randy
BEAR Labs
Randall Bradley
tested electric blankets, and tested them for everything except for
one thing!
What was that?
HEATING!!!
Absurd.
_-_-randy
BEAR Labs
Steve Zipser
> Just like better cables, connectors,
> DACs, and amps ;-)
> Zip
In article <7ml9rt$nq3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, jas...@my-deja.com says...
> Zip, weren't you bitchin' earlier about somebody posting non-audio
> stuff?
Jason:
What does the above sentance look like to you, a recipe for Spaghetti?
jas...@my-deja.com
z...@sunshinestereo.com (Steve Zipser) wrote:
> > z...@sunshinestereo.com (Steve Zipser) wrote:
> > Just like better cables, connectors,
> > DACs, and amps ;-)
> > Zip
>
> In article <7ml9rt$nq3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, jas...@my-deja.com says...
> > Zip, weren't you bitchin' earlier about somebody posting non-audio
> > stuff?
>
> Jason:
> What does the above sentance look like to you, a recipe for Spaghetti?
> Zip
<spam snip>
Actually it looks like someone snipping out the rest of the post and
taking the sentence out of context to cover his hypocritical ass!
Steve Zipser
> In article <MPG.11f7fa006...@news.mia.bellsouth.net>,
> z...@sunshinestereo.com (Steve Zipser) wrote:
> > > z...@sunshinestereo.com (Steve Zipser) wrote:
> > > Just like better cables, connectors,
> > > DACs, and amps ;-)
> > > Zip
> >
> > In article <7ml9rt$nq3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, jas...@my-deja.com says...
> > > Zip, weren't you bitchin' earlier about somebody posting non-audio
> > > stuff?
> >
> > Jason:
> > What does the above sentance look like to you, a recipe for Spaghetti?
> > Zip
>
> <spam snip>
>
>
> Actually it looks like someone snipping out the rest of the post and
> taking the sentence out of context to cover his hypocritical ass!
>
> Jason O.
Actually the whole point was to send the topic back to audio!
Sorry you missed an obvious point.
Have agreat day!
Cheers
Zip
Arny Krüger
Randall Bradley <ra...@ultra1.rdrc.rpi.edu> wrote in message
news:7mkuh6$cv4$1...@ultra1.rdrc.rpi.edu...
> These threads are becoming increasingly absurd.
>
> Everything does *not* sound the same.
Rather obviously. This is one reason why I always say that it is harder to
hear that two things sound the same than to hear that they sound different.
> Some people can literally *hear* better than others - 2 main reasons;
> 1) better mechanics/less wear to the ear mechanisms
> 2) better brain processing for sounds
This is also true. But the "better" only goes so far. For example, many
people unknowingly claim to hear distortions that are so faint that they
fail to equal or even come near to the energy in the brownian motion of one
air molecule. For obvious reasons, that's the absolutely lowest threshold of
hearing for ANYBODY.
> This is self-evident.
Not really. And claiming that it is, comes across as being a dodge from
dealing with the underlying issues.
> All electronics do NOT sound identical - regardless of how low of a
> measured distortion they have.
Now, are we supposed to accept your authority in this matter over all the
scientists over the years who have found otherwise?
> And, regardless of what certain very
> knowledgeable individuals espouse in the ngs, amps with different
> damping factors have difference*s* in subjective bass quality with
> *most* speaker systems.
Let's look at this one. Damping factor is a complex way of looking at a
simple thing called output impedance. If you increase the output impedance
of an amp, its like putting a resistor in series with the output of a more
ideal amp. If you put a resistor in series with a speaker, ordinarly the
frequency response of the speaker will become less uniform, and at a variety
of frequencies, not just the bass. Think I'm making this up? This is a
result that is easy to show analytically and experiementally. I've seen at
least a dozen examples of it in Stereophile over the past year, maybe more.
> What this discussion really boils down to is two main points:
> 1) what *measurable* parameters, at what "levels" are
> perceptable, in what circumstances to a statistical majority
> (mean, average, whatever...) of listeners and,
Yup, the thresholds of audiblity of distortion of various kinds. Agreed,
very important, but also already known to a useful degree.
> 2) how do *people* actually listen? the processing in the brain
> and how that effects perception, subjective "feel", and how
> what *TEST* protocols will interact with "brain processing of
> sound" are the sorts of things that are "wild cards" in this
> discussion.
Actually, you can take your pick of a variety of *good* test protocols, and
as long as they don't involve revealing the identity of the alternatives
being listened to for the listener, the results have a very strong tendency
to converge. The worst test protocols are the ones that are most similar to
the "Single Presentation Method", so beloved of one or more specialty audio
ragazines.
> I'd posit that for 2) above, not enough is known yet to be *able* to
> reliably draw conclusions from the usual sorts of tests that are used
> at this time to detect "differences reliably."
Now, are we supposed to accept your authority in this matter over all the
scientists over the years who have found otherwise?
> That is the tests show what they show, but they do not show that these
> tests do not have an effect on the *way* that the brain processes sound
and thus causes unintended skews in the results.
When a variety of different testing procedures have results that converge
towards common results, this indicates that varying testing procedures is
not a strong limitation on the ideas we are developing about what the
hearing thresholds are.
And, in many cases, the hearing thresholds can be set by understanding of
the simple mechanics of the ear. If the ear sends no signal to the brain for
both alternatives, or sends perfepctly identical signals, how can the brain
have a reliably different perception of them?
>
> See Shrodinger's Cat... :)
Audio is not quantum theory. Audio is about finite processes that are at
most, microscopic, not subatomic.
> Anyone who has the answers to the above can go straight to the ead of the
class...
That would include a lot of people.
> Until such time as all of these issues are clearly resolved beyond
> reasonable doubt or better, face it, it is still a crap shoot.
Whose reasonable doubt?
> SO, *if* it *sounds* better to YOU, then it *is* better for *YOU*.
That's just solipsism. Scnentifically useless. Useless from the standpoint
of being useful news for others. Wise people keep these sorts of things to
themselves until they have something that would be helpful to others.
> BTW, no one is going to listen down to the molecular motion of the air,
> your heart, breathing and other body noises are going to drown that
> out in a deafening way.
Been there, done that, and body noises are hardly deafening in a very quiet
space.
Are you sure you aren't making some of this up as you go along? ;-)
Arny Krüger
> In article <378b22b2...@NEWS.SUPERNEWS.COM>,
> Flap Jack <n...@all.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 07 Jul 1999 05:43:28 -0400, nite...@voicenet.com (Barry Mann)
> >wrote:
> >
> >....snip...
> >>A large number of people claim to be able to hear differences in cables,
> >....snip...
> >>obvious conclusion is that the test subjects were deluded
> >,,,snip
> >
> >Barry,
> >I'm speaking here as a statistician that has worked for 22 years in
> >experimental design labs and on clinical studies. Including a lot of
> >double blind studies.
> >Flap Jack.
> >
> >How else can you explain:
> >
> >1. People who swear that their cars run noticeably better on high test
> >gas. Over years of testing, the petroleum industry could not produce
> >one speck of evidence that putting high test in an engine designed for
> >regular makes it run better. And this was at the risk of loosing
> >billions in revenue marketing mid-grade and high test;
> >
> This is not correct.
Actually, it is.
> Especially in the days before computer controlled
> fuel and ignition, a high test fuel could improve engine performance
> depending upon how the car was tuned and timed.
However, that was out-of-spec tuning in most cases.
Furthermore, computer controls can actually make engine performance MORE
sensitive to octane changes, not less. After all, they are somewhat adaptive
by nature.
Arny Krüger
> I completely gave up on them (Consumer Reports) when years ago they
> tested electric blankets, and tested them for everything except for
> one thing!
>
> What was that?
>
> HEATING!!!
>
> Absurd.
>
I presume you are referring to the 1/97 update to an earlier report that did
discuss heating and comfort.
Sander deWaal
<some major snips>
>> And, regardless of what certain very
>> knowledgeable individuals espouse in the ngs, amps with different
>> damping factors have difference*s* in subjective bass quality with
>> *most* speaker systems.
>
>Let's look at this one. Damping factor is a complex way of looking at a
>simple thing called output impedance. If you increase the output impedance
>of an amp, its like putting a resistor in series with the output of a more
>ideal amp. If you put a resistor in series with a speaker, ordinarly the
>frequency response of the speaker will become less uniform, and at a variety
>of frequencies, not just the bass. Think I'm making this up? This is a
>result that is easy to show analytically and experiementally. I've seen at
>least a dozen examples of it in Stereophile over the past year, maybe more.
Simply adding a resistor *after* the amp's output, isn't the same
as an amp with a low DF (when global NFB is applied).
The global feedback will to some degree try to compensate for
anomalies, where the amp+resistor simply can't do that.
This for sure is a reason why both setups will sound different,
assuming all else measures alike.
--
Sander deWaal
c...@wxs.nl
Arny Krüger
Sander deWaal <c...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:378e678a...@news.wxs.nl...
> >> knowledgeable individuals espouse in the ngs, amps with different
> >> damping factors have difference*s* in subjective bass quality with
> >> *most* speaker systems.
> >
> >Let's look at this one. Damping factor is a complex way of looking at a
> >simple thing called output impedance. If you increase the output
impedance
> >of an amp, its like putting a resistor in series with the output of a
more
> >ideal amp. If you put a resistor in series with a speaker, ordinarly the
> >frequency response of the speaker will become less uniform, and at a
variety
> >of frequencies, not just the bass. Think I'm making this up? This is a
> >result that is easy to show analytically and experiementally. I've seen
at
> >least a dozen examples of it in Stereophile over the past year, maybe
more.
>
> as an amp with a low DF (when global NFB is applied).
Not the same, but not necessarily that much different, either.
> The global feedback will to some degree try to compensate for
> anomalies, where the amp+resistor simply can't do that.
Adding the resistor has an effect on output impedance that is similar to
that of reducing the feedback in the amp.
> This for sure is a reason why both setups will sound different,
> assuming all else measures alike.
Well, the major reason why the resistor+good amp will not sound exactly
like an amp with poor damping factor is that the resistor+good amp will be
more likely to have an output impedance that is uniform with frequency. The
amp with poor damping factor is more likely to have an output impedance that
varies strongly with frequency.
Sander deWaal
>Sander deWaal <c...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
>> Simply adding a resistor *after* the amp's output, isn't the same
>> as an amp with a low DF (when global NFB is applied).
>Not the same, but not necessarily that much different, either.
That depends on the speaker and the value of said resistor.
>> The global feedback will to some degree try to compensate for
>> anomalies, where the amp+resistor simply can't do that.
>
>Adding the resistor has an effect on output impedance that is similar to
>that of reducing the feedback in the amp.
Hmmmm....if the speaker impedance goes up, like in the
low freq. resonance, and the higher frequencies, and
the crossover points, the amp with lower DF still will
compensate for that (voltage source behaviour).
The amp + resistor simply can't (to that degree), and will drop
voltage across the speaker's terminals.
Again, this depends on the values involved, but I wouldn't
call this "similar".
Only the speaker *damping* behaviour will be similar, if
we look at a spekaer being a series model of Rdc and wL.
>> This for sure is a reason why both setups will sound different,
>> assuming all else measures alike.
>
>Well, the major reason why the resistor+good amp will not sound exactly
>like an amp with poor damping factor is that the resistor+good amp will be
>more likely to have an output impedance that is uniform with frequency. The
>amp with poor damping factor is more likely to have an output impedance that
>varies strongly with frequency.
You're thinking tubes too much :-)
See above.
--
Sander deWaal
c...@wxs.nl
Arny Krüger
> "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net> said:
>
> >Sander deWaal <c...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
>
> >> Simply adding a resistor *after* the amp's output, isn't the same
> >> as an amp with a low DF (when global NFB is applied).
>
> >Not the same, but not necessarily that much different, either.
>
> That depends on the speaker and the value of said resistor.
Actually it depends at least as much on the two amplfiers.
> >> The global feedback will to some degree try to compensate for
> >> anomalies, where the amp+resistor simply can't do that.
> >
> >Adding the resistor has an effect on output impedance that is similar to
> >that of reducing the feedback in the amp.
> Hmmmm....if the speaker impedance goes up, like in the
> low freq. resonance, and the higher frequencies, and
> the crossover points, the amp with lower DF still will
> compensate for that (voltage source behaviour).
True.
> The amp + resistor simply can't (to that degree), and will drop
> voltage across the speaker's terminals.
Nope. If the impedance of the speaker goes up, then the current flow
through the resistor goes down, and the volate drop across it goes down and
the voltage across the speaker goes up.
> Again, this depends on the values involved, but I wouldn't
> call this "similar".
You don't think its similar because you got your facts wrong.
> Only the speaker *damping* behaviour will be similar, if
> we look at a spekaer being a series model of Rdc and wL.
I really don't know what you are saying here. Please clarify.
> >> This for sure is a reason why both setups will sound different,
> >> assuming all else measures alike.
> >
> >Well, the major reason why the resistor+good amp will not sound exactly
> >like an amp with poor damping factor is that the resistor+good amp will
be
> >more likely to have an output impedance that is uniform with frequency.
The
> >amp with poor damping factor is more likely to have an output impedance
that
> >varies strongly with frequency.
>
> You're thinking tubes too much :-)
It's also true with SS, but with tubes the DF tends to go down at both the
low and high ends because of the output transformer, but with SS, if there
is a tendency for it to go down, its usually just at the high end.
Sander deWaal
>Sander deWaal <c...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
>news:378f2c18...@news.wxs.nl...
>> The amp + resistor simply can't (to that degree), and will drop
>> voltage across the speaker's terminals.
>Nope. If the impedance of the speaker goes up, then the current flow
>through the resistor goes down, and the volate drop across it goes down and
>the voltage across the speaker goes up.
You're right of course.
I was thinking of impedance dips, where this effect will occur.
But, remembering the voltage source behaviour of the first amp
(without added R), it will compensate for the rising impedance,
also.
Anyway, the amp +R will have different behaviour.
>> Again, this depends on the values involved, but I wouldn't
>> call this "similar".
>You don't think its similar because you got your facts wrong.
Agreed.ƒ
>> Only the speaker *damping* behaviour will be similar, if
>> we look at a spekaer being a series model of Rdc and wL.
>I really don't know what you are saying here. Please clarify.
A simplified model of a speaker , just in terms of impedance,
can be seen as the DC resistance in series with the voice
coil's reactance, in this case omega*L.
As you can see, the DC resistance will be higher than the
equivalent output impedance of virtually any amp (most
SETAs excluded), so adding a resistor in series with
that high DF amp, won't differ much from an amp which has
a lowish DF from itself ,if damping behaviour is concerned.
(I just realize I wrote "damping" in the above, which
probably isn't correct English. Should that be "dampening"?)
>> You're thinking tubes too much :-)
>
>It's also true with SS, but with tubes the DF tends to go down at both the
>low and high ends because of the output transformer, but with SS, if there
>is a tendency for it to go down, its usually just at the high end.
This is correct, except for older amps with output caps.
--
Sander deWaal
c...@wxs.nl
Richard D Pierce
>>> Only the speaker *damping* behaviour will be similar, if
>>> we look at a spekaer being a series model of Rdc and wL.
>
>>I really don't know what you are saying here. Please clarify.
>
>A simplified model of a speaker , just in terms of impedance,
>can be seen as the DC resistance in series with the voice
>coil's reactance, in this case omega*L.
>As you can see, the DC resistance will be higher than the
>equivalent output impedance of virtually any amp (most
>SETAs excluded), so adding a resistor in series with
>that high DF amp, won't differ much from an amp which has
>a lowish DF from itself ,if damping behaviour is concerned.
Such a model is highly innappropriate from several different
viewpoints. First, the inductive portion of the impedance is
fairly unimportant. Second, in such a model, damping is
sompletely unimportant. Damping (and, yes, it's damping) has a
specific meaning in describing physical behavior: it describes
the process of removing energy from a resonant system: the more
damped a system is, the faster the energy is removed. A resistor
an an inductor do not form a resonant system. And, rest assured,
a loudspeaker is a resonant system. In such a case, the more
appropriate second order model would be a resistor in series
with a parallel LRC resonant circuit at a minimum. Now we have
something into which energy is stored in a periodic or resonant
fashion, and somethin which can, thus, be "damped."
That much being said, we are now back at the old saw about
damping factor as a means of controlling the damping of the
entire resonant system. And go a wee bit further in your
analysis: the rate at which the energy is removed from the
system: the rate at which system is damped is dependent upon the
TOTAL series loop resistance, including BOTH the DC resistance
of the loudspeaker voice coil AND the output resistance of the
amplifier.
And unless that output resistance is large, it is, as has been
said repeatedly, the voice coil DC resistance that is the
dominant factor in determing the damping of the system, NOT the
output of the amplifier. The common use of the term "damping
factor" as the simple ratio of load to source resistance really
simply does not indicate how well the system is damped until
that number drops below some gorssly low value, like 15 or so!
Now, as always, this is NOT to say the output impedance of the
amplifier has NO effect. As has been pointed out a post or two
ago, that output impedance, combined with the frequency-
dependent load impedance presented by the speaker, will thus
have a frequency-dependent attenuative effect on the entire
system.
But as far as "damping" is concerned, not until the source
impedance becomes proximal to the DC resistance of the voice
coil is there, in fact, any appreciable effect on the "damping"
of the system: that is, the control of the fundamental
mechanical resonances of the loudspeaker system.
This flies in the face of the conventional wisdom regarding
damping factor. However, this seeming contradiction is easily
explained: the conventional wisdom regarding damping factor is
simply wrong. I have posted a more detailed analysis showing why
this is elsewhere, a search of DejaNews will produce a copy.
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| DPi...@world.std.com |
Arny Krüger
> "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net> said:
>
> >Sander deWaal <c...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
> >news:378f2c18...@news.wxs.nl...
>
> >> The amp + resistor simply can't (to that degree), and will drop
> >> voltage across the speaker's terminals.
>
> >Nope. If the impedance of the speaker goes up, then the current flow
> >through the resistor goes down, and the volate drop across it goes down
and
> >the voltage across the speaker goes up.
>
> You're right of course.
> I was thinking of impedance dips, where this effect will occur.
> But, remembering the voltage source behaviour of the first amp
> (without added R), it will compensate for the rising impedance,
> also.
> Anyway, the amp +R will have different behaviour.
>
> >> Again, this depends on the values involved, but I wouldn't
> >> call this "similar".
>
> >You don't think its similar because you got your facts wrong.
>
> Agreed.
At this point we see one of those landmark events in RAO history, where a
critical point was raised in a technical discussion, an explanation
provided, correctly perceived, and the outcome agreed upon after an initial
controversy. Actually, in other NG's it happens all the time, but in RAO its
almost like an annual event. ;-) It could happen daily if people weren't so
stubborn. Anyway, thanks, Sander!
> >> Only the speaker *damping* behaviour will be similar, if
> >> we look at a spekaer being a series model of Rdc and wL.
>
> >I really don't know what you are saying here. Please clarify.
>
> A simplified model of a speaker , just in terms of impedance,
> can be seen as the DC resistance in series with the voice
> coil's reactance, in this case omega*L.
OK.
> As you can see, the DC resistance will be higher than the
> equivalent output impedance of virtually any amp (most
> SETAs excluded),
Agreed.
>...so adding a resistor in series with
> that high DF amp, won't differ much from an amp which has
> a lowish DF from itself ,if damping behaviour is concerned.
Not really. That DC resistance is known as Re. It turns out that Re is often
a pretty sensitive parameter in speaker designs. The whole design of bass
speakers includes Re. Change it one way or the other, and the speaker's bass
performance changes pretty strongly. If the low frequency system in a
speaker is rolling off in the 80 Hz range, for example, where the ear is
still reasonably sensitive to changes in FR, then small changes in Re can be
quite audibly significant. One reason why designing good sounding
minispeakers can be a touchy business.
If you were around here a few weeks ago, there was a discussion by Ken
Kantor and I about this very issue, only in it we were talking about the
series resistance of speaker cables. This was stimulated by the fact that
the two larger members of Ken's NHT Pro line of speakers use what is pretty
much a standard-looking XLR-termnated mic cable for speaker cable. If you
look inside the connectors, its clear that the "mic cable" ain't #12 in
drag. It's more like #22. It's obvious that Ken put the resistance of that
cable into his design for the woofer/box/amp that drives it. It's an old
"trick" and its no trick at all. You ust do it. The two speakers/cables/amps
are sold as a system, and they sound fine.
> (I just realize I wrote "damping" in the above, which
> probably isn't correct English. Should that be "dampening"?)
Actually, the whole use of damping is IMO too restrictive. Given that
speakers can have a highly variable impedance all over the audible range,
and high amp source impedance turns that into frequency response
variatioins, using a term that suggests changes only in the bass seems
highly misleading.
> >> You're thinking tubes too much :-)
>
> >It's also true with SS, but with tubes the DF tends to go down at both
the
> >low and high ends because of the output transformer, but with SS, if
there
> >is a tendency for it to go down, its usually just at the high end.
>
> This is correct, except for older amps with output caps.
I'd like to forge that phase of SS! ;-)
However, the SS amps with output caps actually had another problem. Their
output capacitors can work in conjunction with certain bass alignments to
produce rather large RISES in response. Talk about counter-intuitive! ;-)
Actually, this effect can happen anywhere a speaker has a low-end roll-off,
even when the speaker is a tweeter and the roll-off is at 3 kHz. You just
need the right sized cap. In the case of early SS amps with capacitor
outputs, they often had the right sized cap to act this way at low
frequenceis (30-50 Hz) with the common speakers of the day.
Sander deWaal
SW------------->
>>...so adding a resistor in series with
>> that high DF amp, won't differ much from an amp which has
>> a lowish DF from itself ,if damping behaviour is concerned.
>Not really. That DC resistance is known as Re. It turns out that Re is often
>a pretty sensitive parameter in speaker designs. The whole design of bass
>speakers includes Re. Change it one way or the other, and the speaker's bass
>performance changes pretty strongly. If the low frequency system in a
>speaker is rolling off in the 80 Hz range, for example, where the ear is
>still reasonably sensitive to changes in FR, then small changes in Re can be
>quite audibly significant. One reason why designing good sounding
>minispeakers can be a touchy business.
>If you were around here a few weeks ago, there was a discussion by Ken
>Kantor and I about this very issue, only in it we were talking about the
>series resistance of speaker cables. This was stimulated by the fact that
>the two larger members of Ken's NHT Pro line of speakers use what is pretty
>much a standard-looking XLR-termnated mic cable for speaker cable. If you
>look inside the connectors, its clear that the "mic cable" ain't #12 in
>drag. It's more like #22. It's obvious that Ken put the resistance of that
>cable into his design for the woofer/box/amp that drives it. It's an old
>"trick" and its no trick at all. You ust do it. The two speakers/cables/amps
>are sold as a system, and they sound fine.
I've seen that thread, yes.
Seems logical to me, also :-)
SW----------->
>> (I just realize I wrote "damping" in the above, which
>> probably isn't correct English. Should that be "dampening"?)
>
>Actually, the whole use of damping is IMO too restrictive. Given that
>speakers can have a highly variable impedance all over the audible range,
>and high amp source impedance turns that into frequency response
>variatioins, using a term that suggests changes only in the bass seems
>highly misleading.
Well, I didn't say that it only happened in the low freq. region.
What I *did* say was that when looking at damping only,
the difference btw. an amp with relative low DF and an amp
with high DF + resistor, there isn't much difference.
Of course, the overall behaviour (like FR etc) is affected,
which I said in the first place.
Seems to me we agree here also.......
AK------------>
>> >It's also true with SS, but with tubes the DF tends to go down at both
>the
>> >low and high ends because of the output transformer, but with SS, if
>there
>> >is a tendency for it to go down, its usually just at the high end.
SW----------->
>> This is correct, except for older amps with output caps.
>I'd like to forge that phase of SS! ;-)
You'd like to *forge* it? :-)
Don't bother to respond, I know what you meant .
Just seemed like a Freudian slip ::grin::
>However, the SS amps with output caps actually had another problem. Their
>output capacitors can work in conjunction with certain bass alignments to
>produce rather large RISES in response. Talk about counter-intuitive! ;-)
Hey I knew that :-)
>Actually, this effect can happen anywhere a speaker has a low-end roll-off,
>even when the speaker is a tweeter and the roll-off is at 3 kHz. You just
>need the right sized cap. In the case of early SS amps with capacitor
>outputs, they often had the right sized cap to act this way at low
>frequenceis (30-50 Hz) with the common speakers of the day.
They offer the same today in mini-hifi sets, they just call
it different : bass-boost :-)
--
Sander deWaal
c...@wxs.nl
John Busenitz
news:7mim2e$mgu$5...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > What's absurd is the stupidity shown by this poster. No,
> > perceptually-based codecs are based on years of research
> > on psychoacoustics. It's not "a few geeks" that put it
> > together, but well educated and expert people with MUCH
> > more knowledge in this area than you.
>
> If there was so much "research" supporting the perceptual coders, why are
> they so obviously bad?
They are not "so obviously bad". I'd like to see an
uneducated jackass like you do a better job. There have
been controlled listening tests that show various levels
of audible transparency in different codecs. Some are
pretty good, much better than the popular MP3 format.
I suggest you get the facts before posting, Mr. "Enclosure
type has no bearing on transient response" Bose-fan.