 
|
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 |
71.146.8.173
In Reply to: RE: Beware bringing music in to work! posted by Bob_C on August 24, 2014 at 22:16:04
(Edit: Oops! Fumble fingers hit the wrong key I guess.)"No reason to. I have no interest. Not the way people listen to music IMO."
Earlier you posted: "How do you know unequivocally that you concept or testing or measurements is the correct path? Prove this..."What if one's hearing and the human experience was actually the way to find the audio truth???
"And you are just full of hot air???
"Prove this wrong..."
As I understand your position, you speculate that human hearing is more acute and discerning than modern test equipment, and that the human ear can hear things test equipment will miss. This directly contradicts my position that "Identical waveforms will sound the same. For that matter, it's even possible for different waveforms to sound the same if the difference is too small to hear."
You asked me to prove you wrong. However, when I point you to a demonstration of my position, you refuse to listen to it. I'm not sure what more I can do, Bob. I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Oh, and about that "respect" stuff: is that like you calling me "Mr. Ear Wax?" ;-)
All the Best!
JE
Edits: 08/24/14Follow Ups:
... nicely and not so much.
For your benefit, I'll summarize once again:
Since you don't have anything useful to say, the best course of action for you is to shut the f... up - and enjoy the silent respect.
The alternative, which you have been following so far, is to continue typing your retarded, mindless, offensive crap, which contributes nothing useful from any perspective - and get what you deserve in response.
I don't even have to address a post to this guy and he still keeps on having his nervous breakdown!
"I don't even have to address a post to this guy and he still keeps on having his nervous breakdown!"
There is a word that describes people who post to get this kind of result: troll. One interpretation of your post is an admission that you are a troll. Is this what you have in mind?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I've not replied to anything at all that he has said. Do you still think I'm trolling him?
I can't help notice you're not bothering to chide him. Why do I get the scoldings?
JE
You are either not trolling him, or you are laughing at your hugely successful troll attempt. I do not presume to guess which it may be.When it comes to trolling, I think the best strategy is to meet the "Caesar's wife" test, i.e. not post anything that anyone could remotely perceive as a troll.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Edits: 08/26/14
It doesn't really matter whether he's really a retard, or just pretends to be the one (most likely, he is a retard, but pretends to be significantly more retarded).
I'm sure he'll be trolling you with even more satisfaction, since you talk all nice and patient, and attempt to explain things - unlike yours truly, who absolutely can't stand dumbf..s.
Way back when, you told me I looked like a troll because I hadn't posted a system and didn't accept email. OK, I posted a system and opened my email to inmates. Not that anyone has ever commented on the system or sent me an email. No one cared. What was the point?After a weekend of abusive posts from carcass93 I started making snarky responses. You jump on that and call it trolling. Do you think "it all started when he hit me back!" is a valid excuse?
Now you are telling me what, exactly? That I shouldn't make any posts that challenge the orthodoxy here? That doing so is trolling? Many of the inmates here hold Hydrogen Audio up for ridicule, for being narrow minded and one sided. If challenging the orthodoxy here is considered trolling, then how is this place any less narrow minded and one sided?
JE
Edits: 08/26/14
"Not that anyone has ever commented on the system or sent me an email. No one cared. What was the point?"
Well actually did not notice... But looking now one can understand where you are coming from... Being honest if you could, do you really feel it is fair for you to comment negativity on what some are doing? Is your point of reference the same or even close? You are welcome to feel the way you want... But is it right to think one understands the handling are performance of an Indy car, when they drive a Yugo...
One, this is my PC system. Can you comprehend that? It's in the den. It is not the "big rig." Sorry, I'm not going to post anything more because I don't feel comfortable opening up my private life to the internet.
Two, if you don't think my PC system is revealing, then you don't know what you are talking about. I'm not saying the little JBLs are the be all and end all of speakers, but they are an astonishingly good value for how inexpensive they are. I've had them for nearly a year now and sitting in the near field I'm still consistently impressed at the details they can bring out. They are like headphones that throw a miniature sound stage on top of my desk. They could well be all the stereo a non-inmate would ever need.
Three, this is why I resisted posting a system in the first place. I post my PC system and you say it's not good enough. If I posted my big rig you would say that my ears must not be good enough. The real issue is my imagination is not good enough to allow me to "perceive" changes that don't exist in reality.
JE
Tell you what - why don't you take your worthless crap, big and small, and get the f... outta here? There's still free registration open at Hydrogen Audio.
simply because a foul-mouthed little piss-ant like you keeps calling me names, you have sadly mistaken my character.
JE
I have actually have listened to a pair and the speakers are not bad, especially for the price. The wave guide does some good things.
I was thinking more about using an internal sound card. This is very different from an external DAC. How can you fairly comment on things like digital cables with nothing to actually hook one up to? Who is jumping. I have had sound cards before. I have actually listened to the speakers you have, and am familiar with near field monitoring.
Think about this... What if the noise PS, EMI/RFI etc of you PC swamps any possible difference in sound in your system? IE... everything sounds the same...
"I have actually have listened to a pair and the speakers are not bad, especially for the price. The wave guide does some good things."Have you heard them in your own house? I enthusiastically recommend the LSR305s for use as PC speakers. I agree. I think that wave guide is the secret to their sound. Note however that it is crucial that you get stands that elevate the tweeters to ear level. I think the IsoAcoustics ISOL8TRS are attractive and do the job, but even a pile of bricks or books would do the job for beginning audiophiles who can't afford the extra $100 for stands.
"I was thinking more about using an internal sound card."
Actually, this is just for the PC system. Amazing as it may seem, I also own a turntable, an optical drive and an external DAC. And multiple pairs of speakers. And multiple amplification chains. Not to mention a pile of LPs and CDs and a NAS. I too am an audio enthusiast.
"Think about this... What if the noise PS, EMI/RFI etc of you PC swamps any possible difference in sound in your system? IE... everything sounds the same..."
I've linked below to the Stereophile measurement of my PC's sound card taken while inside of a PC. While not perfect (what is?) I'm fairly confident that any issues it may have, even in the torturous environment of a PC's interior, are well below the level of audibility. Notice how far down the noise and distortions are?
The whole point of my suggesting the "listener's challenge" was to demonstrate how hard it is to hear differences that are -50dB to -60dB down. I could not care less about differences that are more than -90dB down. I know you refuse to even listen to the "challenge." How about a thought experiment instead. Have you ever listened to a well set up vinyl system? Noticed how good the stereo imaging is? Now ask yourself this: how is that possible when the channel separation is on the order of -35dB down, at best? Anything below -40dB is essentially mono. If it is so easy to hear these low level signals, why don't vinyl systems all sound monophonic?
JE
Edits: 08/30/14
Being a moron would be another one - and being unable to judge others' motives or intentions would be another.
Not to mention that he is dead wrong about me being angry or nervous, when posting my responses to trolls and morons. He should really see/hear me angry :-).
I was responding, I thought politely, to a post from Bob_C, when carcass93 bursts in and flies off the handle at me. Let's see, what else has carcass93 said to me in the last few days.
"... to shut up a deaf f..ng retard like you for good.
$12 less, to be exact - meaning, I would do it for $400."
Or how about:
"Just to chop both of your hands off, to make you stop typing your clueless, tired, offensive, retarded nonsense.
Oh, and would have to take the tongue, too - in case you're thinking about using voice recognition software. After the surgery, worst-case scenario, we would only be subjected to something like "Ooooo.... Aaaaa.... Mmmmmmmmm.....Mmmmmmmmmmm....Mmmmmmmmmm" - which is WAY more positive contribution, than the shit you're excreting now."
Or:
"Just a garden-variety moronic troll from HydrogenAudio, crapping here, because he's bored out of his shallow mind."
Or:
"Like I said, just a moronic troll, whose rightful place is with other (non-)thinking-alike humanure (term invented by American Death Metal band Cattle Decapitation) at HydrogenAudio."
But when I hit back with a snarky remark suddenly I become the troll?
???
JE
. . . you speculate that human hearing is more acute and discerning than modern test equipment
Falsely posed - the two are different. Even when my 'scope was working, it couldn't hear a thing.
It is fatuous to equate perception with "modern test equipment", esp so when the equipment is not described.
. . . and that the human ear can hear things test equipment will miss.
If that weren't so, electrical engineers wouldn't know what to measure. As it is, when new audio-related phenomena are detected, engineers use their considerable skills to describe the perceived differences in electrical terms. See e.g. the data on audible differences between capacitor types and the history of how those differences were first detected then later measured and explained.
Identical waveforms will sound the same.
Er, by definition. Whether small but perhaps critical-in-audio-terms differences between waveforms are readily detected visually, let alone measured, is of course a different matter.
"Falsely posed - the two are different. Even when my 'scope was working, it couldn't hear a thing."
With all due respect, I think you're just squabbling over semantics here.
When you get right down to it, by itself an ear can't hear a thing either. It's got to be hooked up to a brain. On the other hand, without an ear neither can the brain hear anything. The ear is a tool that allows the brain to perceive things it otherwise could not. Similarly, test equipment are tools that also allow the brain to perceive what it otherwise could not. What difference does it make if one is organic and the others are not? I'll agree that telescopes and microscopes by themselves cannot see, but it would be silly to argue that they do not help humans see better than they otherwise could and reveal things our unassisted vision could not possibly see. When people were working on those capacitor issues, did they rely solely on their ears, or did they also use test equipment? I'm betting on the latter, because it increased what their brains could perceive.
"Er, by definition."
Thank you kind sir! You're the first person on this board besides me who has admitted that a=a!
"Whether small but perhaps critical-in-audio-terms differences between waveforms are readily detected visually, let alone measured, is of course a different matter."
Which brings us to the Audio Diffmaker. People on this board are continually affronted by the skepticism I voice when inmates make trivial changes to their systems and then claim that the result is tantamount to the re-mixing of their entire audio libraries. They are outraged when I ask to see a measurement to support their claims. Even here, after bravely conceding that a=a you're trying to find wiggle room to allow for a change in sound without a corresponding, measurable change to the waveform. My position is that huge changes to the sound must be a result of huge changes to the waveform, while subtle changes to the waveform will only result in subtle changes to the sound, or indeed no meaningful change to the sound at all.
Why not check out the Audio Diffmaker and try the listener challenge yourself? All it does is present two fifteen second snippets of music, that sound pretty much the same, yet which have a substantial difference between them. It even allows you to extract the difference between the snippets so you can hear it by itself. This isn't a quiz, there's no pressure, I'm not asking you to report back with your answers. I'm just proffering this as an example of why I am so skeptical of claims that "unmeasurable" changes to a waveform can result in huge audible differences.
All the Best!
JE
People on this board are continually affronted by the skepticism I voice
You flatter yourself. They are in fact aggravated by the cocksure way in which you repeatedly advance banal arguments (in this case, a risible attempt at psychology) and imply that you have insights and understanding that others cannot even aspire to.
My mistake was to try to debate with you.
You directed a post to me. I answered it. You are upset by this. Am I not allowed to reply to posts you make to me? If my replies bother you so much, why send posts to me in the first place?
If my argument is banal and risible, why not demolish it? I've learned a lot by debating points with people who hold opinions opposed to my own. You should try it.
"When you get right down to it, by itself an ear can't hear a thing either. It's got to be hooked up to a brain.".
That brain can't do anything either unless it is under the control of a functioning mind.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Sorry about that! I've no idea what I've done to you. Is asking people to listen to the Audio Diffmaker Listener's Challenge really so insulting?
JE
I suggest improving your ability to detect hidden smily's. :-)
More seriously, people who sport "brain" as well as "ears" while going no further fail to demonstrate a complete understanding of what hears. The mind hears, not the brain or ears. The problem with people who sport a scientistic attitude is that they omit the most important component, which isn't surprising since this is the one where Science has the least amount of knowledge.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"I suggest improving your ability to detect hidden smily's. :-)"
I guess my ability to detect hidden smileys is on par with my ability to detect inaudible sounds. ;-)
"The mind hears, not the brain or ears."
Fair enough. But that doesn't really rebut the point I was making to Ryelands. Let's just substitute "mind" for brain. The ear-brain combination is a tool the mind uses to perceive what it otherwise cannot.
Happy now? :-)
I don't see how in anyway this rebuts my core point that identical waveforms will sound the same, and indeed, even different waveforms will sound the same so long as the differences are so small as to be inaudible. Unless of course you are arguing that the perception of differences between identical waveforms occurs solely in the mind of the listener, that is, in the listener's imagination. I guess I could buy off on that.
All the Best!
JE
"I don't see how in anyway this rebuts my core point that identical waveforms will sound the same, and indeed, even different waveforms will sound the same so long as the differences are so small as to be inaudible"
Identical waveforms will not sound the same each time they are heard. First, there is no such thing as an identical waveform. (Analog signals always come with noise, acoustic signals have thermal motion of air molecules, etc..) But more to the point when it comes to "objective listening tests" the mind has memory. One will not hear the same sound when essentially the same waveform is heard the second time. The second listening will arise at a mind in a different state, a mind that has the memory of the earlier playback and a mind that may be concentrating on different aspects of the sound that it hears. In addition there are unconscious differences that may occur in the mind having to do with mood, level of fatigue, etc..
One may be able to get a clear definition of "obviously audible" but when it comes to subtle differences the concept is extremely difficult to define, leaving room for a lot of argument over what is audible and what is not. To get to the bottom of the situation one must past through the realm of psychology into the realm of philosophy (epistemology).
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"Identical waveforms will not sound the same each time they are heard. First, there is no such thing as an identical waveform. (Analog signals always come with noise, acoustic signals have thermal motion of air molecules, etc..)"
Are you seriously arguing that the "night and day" differences reported by some inmates are due to thermal noise? To air currents and eddies in their rooms? Surely you aren't saying these claims are just a lot of hot air? ;-)
"But more to the point when it comes to "objective listening tests" the mind has memory. One will not hear the same sound when essentially the same waveform is heard the second time. The second listening will arise at a mind in a different state, a mind that has the memory of the earlier playback and a mind that may be concentrating on different aspects of the sound that it hears. In addition there are unconscious differences that may occur in the mind having to do with mood, level of fatigue, etc.."
So what you are saying is that these huge changes inmates claim are because their minds are in a different state? They occur in their minds? I'll agree with that.
"One may be able to get a clear definition of "obviously audible" but when it comes to subtle differences the concept is extremely difficult to define, leaving room for a lot of argument over what is audible and what is not. To get to the bottom of the situation one must past through the realm of psychology into the realm of philosophy (epistemology)."
Why bother with all this fruitless speculation when your proposition above, that the audibility of subtle differences occurs within the minds of the listeners, seems to provide a satisfactory description of what is going on?
"Are you seriously arguing that the "night and day" differences reported by some inmates are due to thermal noise? To air currents and eddies in their rooms? Surely you aren't saying these claims are just a lot of hot air? ;-)"
No. I have no problem detecting hyperbole when I hear it. I also aware that some inmates are more careful in their comments then others and give these people's listening reports more credence than others.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Which kinda makes sense, because it surely is not Computer Audio.
"Is asking people to listen to the Audio Diffmaker Listener's Challenge really so insulting?"
Are you getting paid per click? lol
Perfect waste of money.
"That brain can't do anything either unless it is under the control of a functioning mind."
:)
"Whether small but perhaps critical-in-audio-terms differences between waveforms are readily detected visually, let alone measured, is of course a different matter."
I find it largely a one-way street Dave. Usually if I can hear a difference I can also measure one that probably accounts for it. But going the other way I can't reliably predict what will be audible unless it's pretty gross...
As for scopes, spectrum analyzers and meters they each give you a little different slant on things as does looking both in and out of band. Generally stuff that audiophiles regard as unmeasurable tends to show up best with a scope from my experience which I suspect has to do with how our ears work.
Regards, Rick
Post a Followup:
| 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 © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
