 
|
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 |
174.72.186.110
In Reply to: RE: such an odd dichotomy posted by Inmate51 on March 18, 2024 at 11:36:28
Why would you worry about "traditional" measurements? I can easily take impulse and waterfall measurements in my own home. And I am just a hobbyist.
Follow Ups:
"Why would you worry about "traditional" measurements?"
Please don't misunderstand - I'm not worrying about them. I'm just pointing out that the industry has come a long way since 1970, and that new measurements and techniques are an evolving aspect of science.
I remember back in the early 1970s, as an audio/acoustics student, when John Meyer (now meyersound.com) and Bob Minor let me push the "do it" button on the Tektronix digital 'scope, and we'd capture a few milliseconds of output from a prototype loudspeaker. For better reliability, they'd take an average of 8+ tests. Time-gated loudspeaker measurement later became the norm, and now have even become available to the average audiophile. Here we are, 50 years later! Lots of water over the bridge since the '70s!
*********
We are inclusive and diverse, but dissent will not be tolerated.
"Please don't misunderstand - I'm not worrying about them. I'm just pointing out that the industry has come a long way since 1970, and that new measurements and techniques are an evolving aspect of science."
Indeed. And the impulse and waterfall measurements are great tools. But even those measurements show tons of stuff we can't hear. I can look at a waterfall plot on most multi-million dollar "high end" systems and easily point out huge audible problems that their owners are missing and/or ignoring. We can move a piece of furniture in the room and see a noticeable change in the waterfall plot. A change that we are not going to hear.
It's one of many very informative measurements that far exceeds our ability to hear things. The trick in reading waterfall plots is to know what matters and what doesn't matter.
"I can look at a waterfall plot on most multi-million dollar "high end" systems and easily point out huge audible problems that their owners are missing and/or ignoring."
That is good to know. Can you show us one?
*********
We are inclusive and diverse, but dissent will not be tolerated.
Do you know of anyone with such systems that have been measured or would let me measure them? I'd love to take measurements of the big systems at Axpona next month. I suspect no one would want that
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was asking if you would offer an example of when you've done that.For folks who are reading this and wondering, here is what you wrote:
"I can look at a waterfall plot on most multi-million dollar "high end" systems and easily point out huge audible problems that their owners are missing and/or ignoring."
*********
We are inclusive and diverse, but dissent will not be tolerated.
Edits: 03/19/24
I *CAN* look at a waterfall plot of any system and give you a pretty good breakdown on what is wrong.
I have heard numerous million dollar plus systems that had obvious problems that I am confident would show up on a waterfall plot.
So I put two and two together there. I *CAN* look at a waterfall plot on most multi-million dollar "high end" systems and easily point out huge audible problems that their owners are missing and/or ignoring. Meaning that even a layman such as myself can interpret a waterfall plot and waterfall plots will tell us a lot about a system that owners are likely missing in their evaluations.
Now I might be wrong in speculating that most mega-buck systems would have obvious problems that would be easy to see on a waterfall plot. But it's not a bold prediction when one looks at pictures of the rooms "most" of these systems are in.
And so it goes that most of the owners of these mega-buck systems don't do measurements. At least not good measurements like you get with REW.
"I *CAN* look at a waterfall plot of any system and give you a pretty good breakdown on what is wrong.
I have heard numerous million dollar plus systems that had obvious problems that I am confident would show up on a waterfall plot."
So, your answer is that you've never actually done that.
I admire that you, as a "make-up artist", are so knowledgeable about audio. Clearly, you've done a lot of reading which many audiophiles haven't. On the other hand, you're not a musician, not an audio engineer, not an acoustician, and don't work in any of those fields. Yet you presume to know more about audio than those who are.
*********
We are inclusive and diverse, but dissent will not be tolerated.
"On the other hand, you're not a musician,"
What do musicians know about audio by being a musician? Particularly that a non-musician is incapable of knowing?
"not an audio engineer, not an acoustician, and don't work in any of those fields."
Yeah, that's why I consult actual experts on those subjects. There are a lot of quacks and snake oil salesmen parading as audio engineers and acousticians. I have done a lot of reading and homework and do have a lot of experience. Not nearly enough to make me an expert but more than enough to sniff out the real experts from the pretenders.
That gets the job done
"Yet you presume to know more about audio than those who are."
all that to set up a classic argument from authority fallacy.
But with that fallacy pointed out. NO! I don't presume to know more than I actually know. I get my info from real experts. And since it's from actual experts, top experts it tends to be really good info.
One does not have to have status to have the information and understand it.
And in this particular case you don't need to be an expert to see big problems on waterfall plots when they are there.
"What do musicians know about audio by being a musician?"
A lot.
I'm done with you.
*********
We are inclusive and diverse, but dissent will not be tolerated.
that's just me though, others may disagree because they don't know better
The Flutophone in grade school does NOT count though
Ha! Never heard of that before. Funny name. Although, back in music school, we had to play a "recorder", 'cause that was what was used in elementary schools for teaching a basic understanding of music. (A recorder is kind of like a short plastic clarinet, with only finger holes, no key mechanisms.) I probably still have it around here somewhere.
*********
We are inclusive and diverse, but dissent will not be tolerated.
In my personal conversations with Michael Tilson Thomas, Yuja Wang, Leonidas Kavakos and Mori Kina among others they don't think one needs to have ever played an instrument to understand and appreciate music or sound quality.
But what would any of those people know about either?
Scott, leave it be. You're not changing anyone's mind and just irritate folks with your arrogant attitude.
-Rod
You quoted me out of context. Intellectual dishonesty on top of your unfounded sense of status.
Who are you as a musician? Nobody. So I guess by your messed up logic and sense of status you don't know all that much about audio after all.
You are so full of it.
Be glad, be happy, dance a jig (or a samba), lift a glass, hug somebody, rub a puppy/kitty belly, revel in the glory of the day...
Inmate 51 is done with you!!!!
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Not holding my breath....
he didn't pitch you a *bet* as he has done with me on a couple of occasions.The bets follow questions as to why he hasn't actually presented some evidence of his assertions. What's sad is that he spends endless angry time exploring everything else but simply answering the question.
Edits: 03/20/24
You never actually asked. And what stopped you from checking yourself before spewing nonsense?
What instrument do you play? Are you a professional audio engineer? Perhaps a professional acoustician? Where's your status as a toxic fanboy gate keeper?
...are better than they were in the 70s. And in the 70s, they were better than they were in the 60s, 50s, and so on.
What makes you think we're done with finding new things to measures and ways to do it?
Plenty of examples in the history of science, engineering, medicine and the like that show there is always more to learn.
"What makes you think we're done with finding new things to measures and ways to do it?"
"New things?" We're talking about air vibrations in our ears. What we hear is not *that* complicated. The "alleged" unmeasurable things we supposedly hear have been thoroughly addressed and explained. We don't need to look for alternate explanations unless we find some new evidence that suggests we do.
Ya got five fingers on each hand. How many times do you need to recount them to know it's five?
We don't need to looks for new physics to explain audiophiles who fail to accept psychoacoustics and insist there are unknown physics in play
Now finding other ways to measure things? Yeah that can happen. But there is no reason, no scientifically legitimate reason to think there are vibrations in the air that we can hear but can not measure. The fact that we can measure so many sounds that can not be heard should be a big indicator of the relative sensitivities of our ears vs our measurements.
"Plenty of examples in the history of science, engineering, medicine and the like that show there is always more to learn."
And plenty more examples of known science having things covered on particular topics. We are talking about sound, vibrations in the air with a specific frequency range and amplitude. Newtonian physics has the sound part covered.
> > ""New things?" We're talking about air vibrations in our ears. What we hear is not *that* complicated. The "alleged" unmeasurable things we supposedly hear have been thoroughly addressed and explained. We don't need to look for alternate explanations unless we find some new evidence that suggests we do. "
With that logic we knew everything we needed to know 60 or more years ago.
Guess we can agree to disagree.
When it comes to the nature of sound yeah pretty much. When it comes to measuring sound, no, we did not have the technology to measure sound as accurately or with the same detail as we do now.
We can measure every aspect of sound entering our ears to levels that exceed the thresholds of human hearing.
How we process and store sound in our brains is still very much an on going series of investigations. There seems to be this weird all or nothing logical fallacy that comes with the science on human thresholds of hearing. And measuring sound.
So -- we have nothing left to learn that we don't already know.
As noted, guess we agree to disagree.
You are disagreeing with a burning straw man.
The moderators feel that allowing this thread to continue, even though it may hold useful information, will wind up creating more trouble than it solves, and thereby detract from the purpose of this forum.This is not the appropriate venue for discussion of this matter, and we ask that those with an interest in the subject, take it elsewhere (e.g. private e-mail).
No further follow-ups will be considered.
Thank you for your support of the Asylum.
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 © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
