|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: both replys posted by tomservo on June 20, 2006 at 18:38:21:
Tom I checked out your website. I was disappointed that you show your speakers all covered up, so that none of the drivers can be seen! I also have to admit a bit of a surprise that you make horn speakers. Typically one who likes horns usually also likes SETs as well.That aside, I have to disagree with some points you raised.
1) My point, if there were anything “hiding†one form of measurement or another would have shown "something".
Tom I disagree with that statement completely. Just because you are measuring MANY things and well by todays standards I presume. That doesn't mean that something like musicality or "these sounds" as Dieter refers to them, isn't escaping your detection. It only means you haven't yet discovered the test that will cause these things to reveal themselves.
For Example: I was watching the discovery channel the other night. A man had poisoned two very rich elderly sisters he lived with. This man then had the bodies cremated before anyone suspected any foul play. Seems to cremate a human body requires such high levels of heat to reduce a human body to a pile of ashes, that it consumes all evidence of poisoning. The police called just about every forensic scientist and lab they could locate in the US. Everyone of these scientists and labs told him the same thing i.e. ANY evidence of poison would have been consumed in the cremation process! After much frustration they located a forensic scientist who said he would try to find evidence but he too believed ANY evidence of poison would have been consumed in the cremation process! Yet low and behold after many failed attempts when using the standard accepted forensic tests he decided to try and develop an entirely new type of test and this new test was the one that found the poison that had "hid" from all the previous tests. My point being this. Just like the poison hid from all the previously accepted standard forensic tests except this one newly developed test, I believe "these sounds" are hiding from all todays accepted measurement tests and only a newly developed measurement test will reveal them.
2) In the case where the desirable sounding amplifier has significantly more residual signal in a null test, one can be sure the amplifier is making up all that “goodness†and not the musical instruments or musicians. Nice to hear or not, it is not accuracy you hear.
This all sounds good in theory Tom, but you're are once again forgetting what Real JJ taught us about listening and I'm paraphrasing. (Real JJ complete post can be seen by clicking on link below) According to Real JJ of the "swimming pool" of information we hear when listening to music, FIRST the feature extraction pulls some semi-conciously, semi-unconciously selected bits out of the swimming pool, analyzes it, and gives you A QUART JAR FULL OF INFORMATION and SECOND the auditory object phase analyzes the quart of water, and comes up with A FEW DROPS OF WATER THAT DESCRIBES WHAT YOU HEARD!
So Tom, I ask you, if a "few drops" out of a swimming pool is all we have to work with, isn't highly probable that our ear/brain filters out a lot of what you consider to be objectionable about SET amps anyway? So even if SETs have added artifacts as you say, if they are later filtered out, what does it matter?
Furthermore isn't there at least a POSSIBILITY that "these sounds" which we are not yet able to measure, are influential when the ear/brain combo decides which FEW DROPS OF WATER to keep in order to describe what was heard? Now if it's at least possible, what if it's more than possible and instead it's highly influential to the process? Doesn't this at the very least require that it be studied? This could possibly be the greatest breakthrough in developing a test that honestly correlates what been measured with what's been heard. Of course it's also possible that "these sounds" play a very small part in the process as well.
However until scientists and audio designers open their minds, until people stop pretending todays accepted audio tests are sufficient, until we have a definitive test that correlates accurately what's been measured with what's been heard, we'll never know. IMHO only a quack or someone arrogant would outright dismiss "these sounds" and the POSSIBILITY that they could finally lead us to a test that correlates what's heard, with what's been measured. This should be either proven or disproven, but it needs to be examined by scientists and audio designers throughly. Not just discarded like Dan Banquer did when he said "I'm not going near your "Gestalt" with a 10 ft pole." or ignored because as you assume "... if there were anything “hiding†one form of measurement or another would have shown "something". This needs to be studied by scientists and audio designers with open minds who want to bust myths if that's what this is or create a legends by verification if it proves true.
Thetubeguy1954
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: both replys - thetubeguy1954 07:39:38 06/21/06 (2)
- Re: both replys - tomservo 12:49:56 06/21/06 (0)
- "This needs to be studied by scientists and audio designers with open minds." Rotsa ruck there, fella! nt - clarkjohnsen 09:40:48 06/21/06 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
