 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
185.192.20.10
In Reply to: RE: So are you an absolutist? posted by morricab on June 17, 2024 at 02:44:19
You call his conclusion "wishy washy" but I would characterize it as less dogmatic.
You know, this whole discussion started when a few posters seemed to get triggered when Amir and Audio Science Review were brought up (not by me I might add!). As I've said all along, people have the right to their beliefs and perceptions - even though these perceptions may (and do!) change from day to day (as Geddes pointed out!).
Follow Ups:
People can believe what they want but the listening data strongly suggests that there are preferences that probably don't align with some people's belief. What is clear, is that THD and IMD don't correlate well with those preferences.
he doesn't bother following links to actually understand what's being discussed.
I found the listening correlation data comparing THD, IMD and G m compelling. You might as well flip a coin with the first. And really enjoy the selection chosen!
You're trying to pretend that all I care about is THD. Once again, not true.
you don't pay attention. You don't follow links. You don't follow observations. You don't even read the manuals for your gear.
Let's review what my last post observed of your behavior:
"As previously observed, he doesn't bother following links to actually understand what's being discussed."
It is clear from other questions you've made that you didn't download and read the two references found a day earlier here.
Hint: blue text in my posts signals a hyperlink. Click Chris, click!
I'm convinced this will be the very first time you've seen the referenced Powerpoint slides like this:
. . . studies which have only the most peripheral relationship to to my posts. Let me remind you of what the main point of my posts was: that measurements (and NOT just THD!) can help us in describing the sound of a given component. You admitted that that was true yourself. But then you turned around and started in with a bunch of bunk you somehow divined from my previous posts.
So I don't follow observations? I think that's MORE true of you. If distortion measurements are so useless, why do almost ALL audio manufacturers provide them? Are they trying to deceive customers? Seems to me that you and Morricab are out in the cold with you own contentions on this point. (And, BTW, I'm NOT disputing that masking is a thing. After all, I prefer to listen to Dolby Atmos these days - which I listen to mostly via Apple Music's LOSSY streaming! Talk about masking! LOL!)
And just because you posted a picture of your listening environment which CLEARLY showed your speakers placed perpendicularly to each other doesn't make it incumbent on me to follow YOUR observations - or anyone else's "observations" for that matter.
which CLEARLY showed your speakers placed perpendicularly to each other.
How they radiate into the room, however, is symmetric. Per the manual, each is aimed 30 degrees to listening area.
I can recommend a good oculist for you. ;)
Indeed. Cheever also came up with a metric that included SPL because the ear/brain masking extent (i.e. what harmonics and how much) changes with SPL.
This is why low SPL is more critical than high SPL because masking is less effective, particularly for high order harmonics even at very low levels. They also tend to be about the same regardless of amp output in a feedback type amplifier. It is also probably why low level resolution and soundstage/imaging are most affected by the negative effects of high order distortion and negative feedback.
. . . was that even INDIVIDUAL subjective perceptions of sound can change from day to day or even hour to hour FOR THE SAME PERSON perceiving the same sound.
How are you going to account for that - and then "quantify" it? It seems to me that the only option you have is to do so in a faux scientific way - by arbitrarily assigning "values" to reactions which cannot by their nature be quantified.
The two of you try to denigrate listeners who set some store by measurements (and not just THD!), and yet you then turn around and quote these "scientific" study measurements which are IMHO pretty dubious.
You clearly haven't heard of statistics...think about it or read about it and it will perhaps come to you eventually how you can get some useful data out of individual preferences.
As to the industry, they provide the measurements they kind of have to, not the ones that would be useful (if fitted with the proper model). They publish THD and maybe IMD...almost no one provides a detailed FFT and model fitting. Aries Cerat provides the level of H2 and H3 at a given power...but that is an exception rather than the rule and the assumption they make is that there is an exponential decay in the harmonics with increasing harmonic order.
. . . that equipment can have as much distortion as possible, and you would still claim there's no correlation? I think one appeal vinyl has for some listeners is that vinyl distortion is euphonic - and they find that pleasing. Euphonic does not equal accurate.
Where do you draw the line? How much distortion is acceptable. Is it anything goes? I doubt that many listeners would agree you in that case.
There is audible and then there is perceived as distorted.
Look at some of the levels of distortion applied in the Geddes paper. Some are very low and some are pretty darn high.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
