Math Unraveled

[jkeny]

It's called reductionism and it comes with all its pitfalls.

But of you can't lick the Proche's body paint & tell it's composition then you couldn't possibly have any valid opinion about it's driving appeal - it's all your delusion & that difference you noticed when you changed tyres has to be disregarded again as your delusion.

 

[jkeny]

Just to give another example (for Tom) of ears hearing something that conventional measurements don't pick up - http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...analysis-flaws&p=167695&viewfull=1#post167695

This is a new type of test which shows the longer term change in timing occurring in the DACMagic's USB input compared to the Halide Bridge USB to SPDIF converter.

 

[FrantzM]

Just to give another example (for Tom) of ears hearing something that conventional measurements don't pick up - http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...analysis-flaws&p=167695&viewfull=1#post167695

This is a new type of test which shows the longer term change in timing occurring in the DACMagic's USB input compared to the Halide Bridge USB to SPDIF converter.

John

Is this as conclusive as you are making it to be? IOW what did we hear that the tests did not pick-up?

 

[jkeny]

John

Is this as conclusive as you are making it to be? IOW what did we hear that the tests did not pick-up?

If I'm over-egging it, forgive me but from what I read the DACMagic's USB is considered considerably worse than the other inputs. When compared to the Halide Bridge doing the USB duties & feeding SPDIF into the DACMAgic, there is a notable difference, according to Jim Lesurf.

Does the Stereohile FFT tests of the DACMagic USB input show this?


The Jim Lesurf IQ-Test shows significant difference between the two inputs - it would be hard to attach significance looking at the above Stereophile FFT of the USB input. So in this particular instance the IQ-test correlates better with what the ears hear.

The highest level of the FFT spurs in the above is about -105dB & indeed some would say that if you can hear that then you are a magician. Just look at the Ethan test already mentioned where reductionism brings the conclusion that -100dB is insignificant & nothing to worry about.

So on this basis of trusting said measurement, accusations of delusion/imagination about differences might well be levelled at those who "claimed" they heard a difference. And the "claimants" asked to prove their assertions.

Thankfully, this sort of bullying no longer happens on this forum

 

[mep]

Mark, see post 44 above, paragraph 5. No body is going to be able to get into an ear/brain interface and figure out what we like to hear, and lets not even get into your recent conversion from one technolgoy to the other,....... as "someting" inside your ear/brain interface obviously changed. And I am not saying that there is a right or wrong in the first place, as I live in both worlds happily. And I use tone controls and external processors and can change sound with a turn of wrist to the point you would not recognize my system from a moment ago.

Say what??

 

[jkeny]

Why do you chose such a simple single measurement for your conclusion based on what someone heard?

Sorry? Again I don't understand your post. I was giving an example of a particular device, DACmagic that is reported to have shortcomings in SQ through it's USB input when compared to it's other inputs. I showed the Stereophile FFT plot using this input which would not lead one to this conclusion. Do you not agree? Is there a graph/plot on Stereophile or elsewhere that shows the shortfall in the SQ of the USB input that I missed? If there is I was not aware of it. My example was simply to show that the standard audio tests fall short in this particular example. The IQ-test seems to correlate with this & reveal some other issues with the USB input.

Do you not have more advanced means of measuring your gear in 2013? The rest of us certainly have advanced techniques, but as you said before when pressed in an earlier thread, they are proprietary, and so are mine.

I never said that I have proprietary measurements that tell me how a device will sound, wish I did. If you do then you can prove I'm wrong very easily & stop this thread dead. We would all learn a great deal by you giving us even a hint how to do this.

 

[jkeny]

Mark, see post 44 above, paragraph 5. No body is going to be able to get into an ear/brain interface and figure out what we like to hear, and lets not even get into your recent conversion from one technolgoy to the other,....... as "someting" inside your ear/brain interface obviously changed. And I am not saying that there is a right or wrong in the first place, as I live in both worlds happily. And I use tone controls and external processors and can change sound with a turn of wrist to the point you would not recognize my system from a moment ago.

This from your post 44 is what baffles me "I feel, without any doubt, that measurments are more sensitive, enveloping, conclusive, and trump hearing for analyzing an audio signal". Exactly what are you analysing an audio signal for? What is the goal? What do these conclusive measurements show? What measurements exactly - known ones or ones yet to be discovered?

 

[mep]

s o m e t i n g, you know; someting.

Since you have misspelled the word "something" three times now, I have to wonder if you are making fun of the Chinese Mr. Sensitive.

 

[jkeny]

Well, of course, nothing. Nothing changing except that what is supposed to, depending on what the circuit is supposed to do. Put a signal in , look at what comes out. Now the type of signal you put in and how you look at it coming out is where rubber meets the road. That is all there is to it.

Yes, I actually agree with this "Now the type of signal you put in and how you look at it coming out is where rubber meets the road." And this is what is under discussion. Vague, simplistic statements really gets nowhere.

One advantage in understanding some more about the detailed mechanism of our hearing is the possibility of focusing on the recording & play back accuracy necessary in the important elements of the sound stage. For instance, it is now known that hearing evaluates/analysis sounds with great emphasis being placed on the rise-time signal of the sound. Focusing on recording & playing back the correct dynamic frequency & timing of this element of the signal to an accuracy important for hearing may well change our replay systems. The measurement approaches taken to date, which seem to focus on a general definition of accuracy (& then used by some as a proof), have brought us a long way but we are now at an impasse. In other words if we study & understand the detailed mechanism of hearing & build the reproduction chain accordingly, we may find a better way forward.

 

[JackD201]

accuracy to the electrical signal

Which ones?

 

[FrantzM]

Totally agree there. Thats why, in my signature line, I comment that given the fixed nature of stereo as used, all one can do is play about with frequency response, phase, accuracy to the electrical signal, reverb, eq, and noise or other modulation effects, and even a perfect system is impossible to convey a live unamplfiied performance. Its just a fact. And so, until some big outfit, like Harmon or Sony or whoever, builds and designs a new format, and people like Bruce on this forum purchase and adopt it, we really are just chasing EQ around and around in audio. In fact, now, its the chassis that we put the stuff in as the last frontier in plain old stereo. I bolded the area that I think you are working in.

TOm

I don't think the issue is that of stereo. There remains works to be done in how the signal is reproduced. We are far from reproducing adequately what is on the media. Our loudspeakers are very poor in this regard and electronics may need to be looked into.
let's make sure we can reproduce as accurately as possible in mono. We'll then expand it to 50 channels if it is what is required.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

The title of the thread seems one pulled from a tabloid. It invite to debates and is an interesting finding. Let's wait for peer reviews. Let also not make of it what it is not Certainly not a refutation of maths not does it invalidate the notion of measurements, since the results are based on .... yes people, measurements. What it does tell us is that we need to know a lot more and that some given measuring techniques have their own limitations.

@Tom

Stereo as conceived in the '30s was much more than that. There were experiments with 80 microphones and 80 channels for music by Harry Fletcher of AT&T (Almost everything in our audio systems comes from the fabled Bell labs) CLICK HERE. And to think that we consider surround wth 7channels as a big deal They weren't looking at things small then It was more convenient to use two channels and it worked but keep in mind that many early "Stereo" recordings were on three channels (RCA, Mercury, etc)

 

[mep]

Terms of service: number 6. quote "focus on the topic being discussed, rather than the person discussing it."

I am focusing on the topic being discussed and your response to it. Don't toss rules out my way that don't apply. You were trying to make a point or be funny or whatever with your use of "someting" and since you addressed the comment to me, I just wanted to understand the context so I could focus on the topic.

 

[jkeny]

Hi

The title of the thread seems one pulled from a tabloid. It invite to debates and is an interesting finding. Let's wait for peer reviews. Let also not make of it what it is not Certainly not a refutation of maths not does it invalidate the notion of measurements, since the results are based on .... yes people, measurements. What it does tell us is that we need to know a lot more and that some given measuring techniques have their own limitations.
....

Completely agree, FrantzM.

 

[mep]

Since your "Mr. Sensitive" comment seems to be immune from the rules in your mind I do not wish to continue.

The "Mr. Sensitive" comment was in response to you being upset with Jack for making a wisecrack that you must be a pleasure to live with that got your nose out of joint. I thought Jack's comment was all in good humor and yet you were not amused and were looking for moderator help to come down on another moderator. And thus my "Mr. Sensitive" comment. And here you are using the term "someting" three different times which tells me it wasn't an accident which I think some Asian people just might find offensive. You can't have your cake and eat it too Tom.