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.
Math Unraveled
- Thread starter MylesBAstor
- Start date
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.
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.
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?
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
Last edited:
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.
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.
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?
Since you have misspelled the word "something" three times now, I have to wonder if you are making fun of the Chinese Mr. Sensitive.
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.
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.
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)
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)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.
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.
Similar threads
