Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Testing audiophile claims and myths - Page 128

post #1906 of 3085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

Not completely. There is still some tube-based gear out there with output impedances in the thousands of ohms. But in the scheme of things, it's pretty rare.

se
We could safely say that any gear designed such that an external uncontrolled variable (like the wire it has to drive) has an unpredictable sonic impact wouldn't exactly be the best engineered design. Probably has other issues too I they ignored cable drive.
post #1907 of 3085
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post


We could safely say that any gear designed such that an external uncontrolled variable (like the wire it has to drive) has an unpredictable sonic impact wouldn't exactly be the best engineered design. Probably has other issues too I they ignored cable drive.

 

Yes, that would be pretty safe to say. biggrin.gif

 

se

post #1908 of 3085
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post


We could safely say that any gear designed such that an external uncontrolled variable (like the wire it has to drive) has an unpredictable sonic impact wouldn't exactly be the best engineered design. Probably has other issues too I they ignored cable drive.

 

The audio consultant Dick Pierce discovered that over a decade ago.  He was testing some very well known & very expensive digital gear. It was so poorly designed that they would only work with some digital interconnects.

post #1909 of 3085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedskater View Post

 

The audio consultant Dick Pierce discovered that over a decade ago.  He was testing some very well known & very expensive digital gear. It was so poorly designed that they would only work with some digital interconnects.

 

I remember that. Great guy. Though I always thought he should have stuck with "Richard." biggrin.gif

 

se

post #1910 of 3085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

I remember that. Great guy. Though I always thought he should have stuck with "Richard." biggrin.gif

se
Classic lol.
post #1911 of 3085

I just saw a post from Dick Pierce a week ago, on the pro audio e-mail board.

post #1912 of 3085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedskater View Post

I just saw a post from Dick Pierce a week ago, on the pro audio e-mail board.

 

Yeah? Glad to hear he's still kicking.

 

se

post #1913 of 3085

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by jaddie View Post

but considering the apparent audience here and their apparent lack of understanding, I could probably have published any formula and nobody who didn't already get it would know the difference anyway.  Didn't seem worth the trouble and time, I'll re-consider next time.  

 

You should, it's the only way to educate people who do not know it.

 

 

But as to all shouting numbers...um...I don't hear numbers coming from the mythology camp, ever.  Because if they did make a claim like "standard cheapo wire produces an XdB roll off at Y-KHz" because of Z-effect, we'd just go prove them completely wrong simply and easily.  No, the number-shouting only comes from people with proof, even if the algebra isn't shown, it's easy to check. 

 

Everything you need to know is pretty much out there already, published, and possibly there's a web-based calculator that does most if not all of the job for you. 

 

You know as well as I do that a believer will never bother to look up the algebra themselves. Which is why I feel it should be posted here, preferrably in a way that is easy to understand. Also stating "I use actual numbers while the other camp doesn't so I am right" is really pushing it wink.gif

 

 

So, you take me to task for not publishingthe example, yet no problem with somebody who says "Oooh, watch out for the capacitance, or impedance (we never touched on that one..) as if that were fact too. 

 

That is not the way I think about it (not sure how you got that from my post), on the contrary. Again, which is exactly why I feel the proper way to counter them is to not use their typical way of providing inaccurate unverifiable nonsense but instead hard scientific proof whenever possible.

 

 

As much as my lack of "proof" may have upset you, people posting comment without Googling the concept first annoys me too.

 

I got that biggrin.gif 

post #1914 of 3085

Yeah, thanks, you're right.  I just got a little frustrated, my bad.  Check my recent post over on the "If it graphs bad then it is bad" thread.  See if you think I've done any better.

post #1915 of 3085

I just read through the thread and yes, that's the spirit :]

Although it's probably already too difficult for some.

post #1916 of 3085
Quote:
Originally Posted by drez View Post


IMo the ability of science to account for the experience of life is very limited, I don't mean that it is useless or incorrect, but just limited in what it can predict. For me my direct experience comes first and foremost above a priorised mentally constructed determination of what my experience will be. Science enters to help make sense of what I directly perceive.

For example I just bought an HD800, and seller says look at the FR chart there is no 6Khz peak, and sure the FR plot provided shows no peak. But my ears tell me otherwise, so I look into it further and the FR plots made by Sennheiser are absolute rubbish. If I were to assume the evidence provided to me was absolute and reliable, and that my own observations are feeble and worthless I would still have sore ears. On the other hand objective measurements help to determine what might be causing what I was observing. Still other people might listen to e exact same headphone and be perfectly happy with them, even with all things being equal.

 

6 KHz sounds like a resonance in your ear. Read this http://www.head-fi.org/a/how-to-equalize-your-headphones-a-tutorial

 

Science wins again.

post #1917 of 3085
And yet somehow the pattern I perceive is pleasing to my eye. I'm going to have to change the brand of tube wax I'm using...
Quote:
Originally Posted by stv014 View Post

If the observation is not made under properly controlled conditions, then there is no evidence that it is true, and it could very well be false, even if it is the same for the majority. If you look at this picture,


do you trust your observation that B is a lighter shade of grey than A (especially after it is backed up by 10 out of 10 other people looking at it and also saying that B is lighter), or the measurement tool of the image editor that says that they are exactly the same ? What do you observe now, with the source of bias removed:

post #1918 of 3085

Another illusion (aka "brain failure") that changes over time:

 

Spinning_Dancer.gif

 

Rotating clockwise or counter-clockwise? Whatever you prefer..

post #1919 of 3085

Clockwise for me... for now... and why did they turn off the lights?

post #1920 of 3085

Initially counter clockwise and then clockwise after looking up the wiki page (but before reading the article, strangely)

 

Closest I could think to this sort of phenomenon in audio would be the illusion of stereo imaging.  This is an interesting talk from the editor of Stereophile, as well as a cheeky dig at the opposition:

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths