John, I should just put up a picture of a signpost for you to argue with. You asked this question a few posts back. I ansered it. You disagree. I get that.
Tim
Measurements & the stereo illusion
- Thread starter jkeny
- Start date
John, I should just put up a picture of a signpost for you to argue with. You asked this question a few posts back. I ansered it. You disagree. I get that.
Tim
Yes, Tim, you answered as follows "I believe if a single electronic component in a system of components can affect a change dramatic enough to audibly change the spatial effect in the room, something at that component's output, causing that effect, would be detected by very mundane, standard measurements."
I'm asking you to back up your claim of "would be detected by very mundane, standard measurements."
As per my last post, detail these mundane tests that will reveal "a change dramatic enough to audibly change the spatial effect in the room"
Are you avoiding answering this?
He is getting around that issue. He is saying even if you can't measure stereo imaging, you can measure the fact that the electrical aspects of the source have changed to lead to a change there. If I change volume, the localization changes. I can measure level change even if I can't measure localization. Likewise if timing is different, I can measure that too. Again, I am not measuring localization but what may have caused it to change. It is like measure how out of balance a tire is vs trying to measure how it feels to drive in a car with unbalanced set of tires.
What has to happen to invalidate such a hypothesis is to show that stereo imaging can change in a way that cannot be reflected in any classic measurement.
I didn't make a claim, John, I expressed a belief; I believe I've been clear about that. And do you quote people out of context purposely or are you just so anxious to make you own point that you don't read full sentences? Here's what I posted:
Do I need to tell you what instruments you would use and measurements you would take to document noise, distortion, channel spearation and frequency response, John?
Tim
In a hobby fraught with car analogies, this is one of the best ever. Many audiophiles will insist that all measurements are inadequate and/or invalid unless and until we measure the way it feels to drive the car, and come up with measurements which support their opinion of the way if feels to drive the car.
Tim
I didn't ask him to tell how measurement equates to localisation - I asked what "mundane measurements" could be used that would reveal a difference & not some vague "it's level or timing where differences will be found"
Seeing as you have picked up this ball, Amir let me ask you too:
Do we use a single tone, 2 tone, multi-tone or music as input signal? Please give your analysis of these options.
Do we measure the output from the two channels or just one? What comparisons between the channels are needed. Do we look at measurements over time or just a single point in time. Please give your analysis of these options
Sorry but a hypothesis needs to have some detail to it to qualify as a hypothesis - details from which tests can be derived to prove/disprove the hypothesis. This is just a vague statement, not a hypothesis. Tim also falls into the common logical flaw of assuming that the corollary of the statement is therefore true - that if there are no such measurements then the statement is proven to be true. Hence his posting that "theory & data" were on his side & all I had was belief.
What theory? He has not produced any so far & I've asked a number of times but all I get are vague statements like above.
I am going to try hard to keep you focused on your title of threadYes, taking medication is usually a sighted process
List of some withdrawn drugs which presumably underwent DBT tests http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs
. Do you think stereo illusion is such a fleeting thing that if you heard the difference between two units and I asked you to close your eyes and answer the same question randomly, you could not? What in all the research you have posted say that?Oh, you mean you are going to post something tangible? Or is this avoiding the questions asked?
Tim, lots of bandwidth on this thread devoted to your claiming that theory & data were on your side, yet you have failed to produce any theory only the vague statement that Amir has repeated & tried to claim it was a hypothesis.
No I mean you need to read the next post that quotes the earlier entry in which I answer your question, the post that you didn't finish reading before you fired off your last snark. This one:
And I'll ask again, because no doubt you will fail to read the end of that post, as well, before you answer: Do I need to tell you what measurements to take to record noise, distortion, channel separation and frequency response? I don't want you to feel like I've avoided your question.
Tim
May have been. I do edit and annotate; it's the nature of the beast. Good enough answer now?
Tim
Just to be clear, I have not assumed this. I have pointed out that the available measurements are in my favor, and while I believe they would be unless you were dealing with a component with some serious performance issues, that is an assumption. I've said nothing about "proof." I know better.
Tim
Ah, too much waste of bandwidth on this thread with these simplistic statements from you & now from Amir.
You cannot just take random, "industry standard" measurements without a hypothesis or model of why you are doing these particular measurements - it's laughable!
It's similarly laughable to then limit the measurements to just these "industry standard" ones & take the position that if no differences are found in these measurements that there is therefore no difference to be found. It really denies all of science & what experiments are about - it's naive & a pretense!
You cannot just take random, "industry standard" measurements without a hypothesis or model of why you are doing these particular measurements - it's laughable!
It's similarly laughable to then limit the measurements to just these "industry standard" ones & take the position that if no differences are found in these measurements that there is therefore no difference to be found. It really denies all of science & what experiments are about - it's naive & a pretense!
I am going to try hard to keep you focused on your title of thread
Amir, I gave an example, that I doubt you disagree with, where DBTs were later overturned by long-term, in-the-field usage. Simple as that!
My view is that almost all combinations of digital sources, solid state amps and cables are, to all practical purposes, identical when it comes to the stereo image and that interchanging them and hearing differences in stereo image is just imagination at work. I say this because they're all going to be almost identical when it comes to inter-channel timing differences (virtually zero) and phase shift (just tiny differences at the extremes of the audible frequency range) with low distortion. Attempting to correlate measurements of these factors with perceived stereo image would be a thankless exercise in tabulating a series of no-better-than-chance percentages.
I believe that an illusion of a stereo image (that probably does not correspond to the real soundstage when the recording was made) can be created or enhanced by manipulating phase and delay using a variety of techniques. I believe that different speakers and room treatments do affect the soundstage, and that when audiophiles rave enthusiastically about some permutation that gives a strong 'soundstage' they are really just enjoying an artificial acoustic phase/delay effect that they could have created a lot more easily and predictably using DSP
I believe that an illusion of a stereo image (that probably does not correspond to the real soundstage when the recording was made) can be created or enhanced by manipulating phase and delay using a variety of techniques. I believe that different speakers and room treatments do affect the soundstage, and that when audiophiles rave enthusiastically about some permutation that gives a strong 'soundstage' they are really just enjoying an artificial acoustic phase/delay effect that they could have created a lot more easily and predictably using DSP
I'm not limiting you to anything, John. You can take whatever measurements you want to take. All I've said is that I believe if a single electronic component, inerted into a signal chain, made enough differnce to audibly alter the spatial illusion in the room, something could be detected, through the standard industry measurements, to have changed at the output of that component. It is simple; I'm sure if you concentrate and don't start constructing your retort before you've finished reading, you can keep up: I believe a difference would be found; I have not taken the position that if they were not found then no differences could exist. You created that argument yourself. Enjoy arguing against it.
The wasted bandwidth in this thread is a result of either your reading or cognitive challenges. You insist on responding to positions that have not been taken and you refuse to accept a difference of opinion. My contribution to the wasted bandwidth is my continued insistence on not being misunderstood, and/or deliberately misrepresented. I'm trying to be patient, to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're being inattentive, not manipulative. That patience is running thin.
Tim
It was simple but off-topic and totally wrong analogy to audio use of DBT. In drugs, they don't take a drug to market if DBT shows that it provides no value over placebo. In audio, products are taken to market all the time that DBTs show to have no value. And a drug is pulled out of the market not because it didn't do anything to cure the disease but it had side effects that were not understood prior to broader use. That doesn't invalidate DBT showing efficacy with respect to the drug helping the disease.
Just out of interest, what sort of level of inter-channel phase/timing/crosstalk change might we see as a (non-linear tracking) tone arm moves across an LP? I'm presuming it would probably be quite measurable, and quite different at the outside from the inside.
Never mind John. Tim is just re-using is old preferred tactic of giving the opponent the benefit of the doubt again ...
Similar threads
