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 135

post #2011 of 3035

Basically just means very low noise.

 

se

post #2012 of 3035

Many, possibly most descriptive terms in audio are analogies, and many of those cluster around the visual description of something physical.  "Veiled", etc.

post #2013 of 3035
Just about all digital audio has a black background, even the cheap stuff.
post #2014 of 3035

Thanks guys, that answers the question.

post #2015 of 3035

Just stumbled upon this article about the Myths behind tubes. Here's the link for those who are interested.

 

http://sound.westhost.com/valves/myths.html

post #2016 of 3035
I've come to the conclusion that the best thing about tubes is that they glow really nice. Someone should come up with some nice LED fake tubes you can put on top of your solid state equipment to pretty it up.

Tubes don't improve the sound, in fact, they aren't even consistent in the way they degrade the it. Solid state has gotten to the point where it's pretty much plug and play. Why go back to worrying about whether the sound is shifting because a tube is not warmed up or beginning to fail?

Why do you think they call it solid state? It's because the sound stays the same.
post #2017 of 3035
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Why do you think they call it solid state? It's because the sound stays the same.

 

Um... no. It's called solid state because the charge carriers pass through a solid material (i.e. germanium or silicon for example) rather than through a vacuum.

 

se


Edited by Steve Eddy - 6/7/13 at 12:28pm
post #2018 of 3035
I was being hyperbolic!
post #2019 of 3035
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

I was being hyperbolic!

 

Sorry. Missed the hyperbole emoticon. biggrin.gif

 

se

post #2020 of 3035

I always enjoy reading this thread.  I am a scientist (Physicist) who prefers to scientifically test and then study numbers and graphs before drawing conclusions on pretty much anything.  From a scientific method I agree with most of what I read here, however, I also understand that the placebo and nocebo effects have been observed in nature within studies and therefore can not be ignored.

 

With this in mind, if people believe things sound better/worse then they will convince themselves of this.  No amount of research and evidence will ever convince the human brain that it did not hear a change if it believed that it did.  If we look at medical trials and the fact we can trick the brain into thinking that it received medication when it was just a simple sugar pill we will never understand what is happening when listening to something as subjective as music.

post #2021 of 3035

There really isn't any reason to try to convince them. It only makes them unhappy.

post #2022 of 3035

And then the moderators come after you.

post #2023 of 3035
Very true.
post #2024 of 3035
Interesting piece on the science (or lack of) of wine tasting: http://m.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis
post #2025 of 3035

precision of Ranking is the issue there - and the "bad judge" 4 points variance on a scale of 100 is way more consistent than chance - seems that the point is a little strained

 

using the ranking beyond its repeatability is a social issue

 

the other examples rather poorly thrown in just point to expectation effect skewing sensory perception - letting price, color info modulate the brain's interpretation of smell, taste


Edited by jcx - 6/23/13 at 10:54am
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