Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Learning more about the science of sound
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Learning more about the science of sound - Page 12

post #166 of 395

Is it really necessary to have a degree, or is it enough to just have taken the classes? I want to take a bunch of courses in a local community college on these engineering topics, but I'm guessing that they will also require me to waste time and money on irrelevant things such as English, chemistry, politics, etc.

Essentially, I can take all the classes I want, but I probably won't get the certification and slip of paper unless I waste a bunch of time in irrelevant classes. Is it worth it to get that degree?

post #167 of 395

It's possible to be an Audio/Recording/etc Engineer without a degree.  But a degree would probably be helpful in getting the more desirable assignments, at least right out of school.

 

I don't think it's possible to be an engineer proper without a degree.  I'm sure it's not possible to earn your PE without one.

 

When I was working on my degree, the required liberal arts courses were pretty minimal, and I was glad to have them as they provided a very nice distraction from what was otherwise solid math, science, and engineering.

post #168 of 395

Every once in a while, when I just read fantastic reviews EVERYWHERE. The science in me likes to take a step back and the doubts come along a bit. 

 

http://www.tera-player.com/Tera-Player_RMAA.html

 

http://www.tera-player.com/

 

Is this a complete joke of a product or am I missing something....

post #169 of 395
Hi that is one heck of a review smily_headphones1.gif could even beat that imod you have. The problem is if the lab doesn't tell us what our ears supposedly hear and double blind testing is flawed because of our ears short term memory span how our we ever going to know that this tera players claims are true?
I am remaining open minded (skeptical on a bad day)
The comparison would have been better against a ck4 an 801 a dx100 and an imod they are the big hitters in the portable market
post #170 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeanidea View Post

Hi that is one heck of a review smily_headphones1.gif could even beat that imod you have. The problem is if the lab doesn't tell us what our ears supposedly hear and double blind testing is flawed because of our ears short term memory span how our we ever going to know that this tera players claims are true?
I am remaining open minded (skeptical on a bad day)
The comparison would have been better against a ck4 an 801 a dx100 and an imod they are the big hitters in the portable market

Hi again!

 

Well, the graphs tell us pretty much all we need to know. I can make sense of the usual RMAA outputs, but the graphs towards the bottom of the page, I am clueless about so I am hoping xnor, jaddie, RevMen or Mr Winer can enlighten me. I know that the 801 has quite the treble roll off as well as higher than normal noise levels so we can remove that from the equation. (In fact worse in every parameter vs a clip+ lol) what a great way to make money.


Edited by uchihaitachi - 5/9/13 at 7:47am
post #171 of 395

Every once in a while, when I just read fantastic reviews EVERYWHERE. The science in me likes to take a step back and the doubts come along a bit. 

 

http://www.tera-player.com/Tera-Player_RMAA.html

 

http://www.tera-player.com/

 

Is this a complete joke of a product or am I missing something....

 

In addition to this question above... Sorry for the double post. Would it be possible to make an IEM that is completely customisable so one could tweak it to sound like whatever IEM model is out there? Also, what are the causes of the sonic differences between different IEMs? Is it the frequency response or is there much more to it than that?

post #172 of 395
As a non engineer I can hash a few answers to that. Iems are only speakers in a smaller format. Themmaterial the shell is made from , the frequency where the crossover (s) have been set, the material the tips are made from, the quality of the seal to your ear, the size and number of drivers themmaterial they are made from. I believe the size that iems are accentuate any of these differences compared to a loudspeaker.
As to how they are engineered to have a certain sonic quality I also have no knowledge. I can mimic my gratitudes to compare with my xba4s in the most obvious of freqiencies by tuning down the bass with the eq setting of my software player on my phone.
For me having small ear canals if I find an iem that'll fit I've kept it and found ways round inadequacies in sound with eq settings
post #173 of 395
There's a tera player for sale on the forum by the way. Will you be taking the plunge?
post #174 of 395

Oh god no... lol. I just wanted to know what to make of the output in the lower end of the aforementioned link.

post #175 of 395

Which output?  If you're talking about a graph, which?

 

On a side note, it seems our "friend" RMAA is up to its usual tricks (being weird, garbage outputs) with the iPod there.

post #176 of 395

Ones below frequency response in teh second link

post #177 of 395

 

In addition to this question above... Sorry for the double post. Would it be possible to make an IEM that is completely customisable so one could tweak it to sound like whatever IEM model is out there? Also, what are the causes of the sonic differences between different IEMs? Is it the frequency response or is there much more to it than that?

Check out sleek audio's IEM's, I have the SA-6's and love them, removable cables and bass and treble can be adjusted by swapping parts

http://sleek-audio.com/

post #178 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeaj View Post

Which output?  If you're talking about a graph, which?

 

On a side note, it seems our "friend" RMAA is up to its usual tricks (being weird, garbage outputs) with the iPod there.

Sorry I meant the first few graphs. The ones where he took pictures under 

 

Step Response, Square Wave, Time Domain

post #179 of 395

Oh, the square waves.  You can kind of see the phase of the DAC reconstruction filter.

 

Though really, those aren't actually square waves, but bandlimited approximations of square waves, hence why there are (supposed to be) ripples.  Square waves have infinite bandwidth.  The correct interpretation of the following sequence of sample points at a given sampling rate: [1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1...] is not something with straight lines up and down and then flat parts (infinitely-fast changes require infinite bandwidth).  The Clip+ seems to be linear phase so it's symmetrical, while the iPod is minimum phase or at least something more towards that side (so the leading part has more energy in that instant).

 

Generally people don't really seem to hear in terms of really really small time steps like that, and they're not exactly that sensitive to phase differences like that, so it's really not an issue.  I'd be very careful about interpreting what stuff "looks" like when viewed in the time domain.  You can get all sorts of "distorted", misshapen forms that sound the same because hearing doesn't follow nice geometric shapes on a scope.

 

Actually, even with one of those dastardly oversampling DACs, you could get an output that looks more like the Tera Player if you really wanted, by using a higher sampling rate, processing everything through a filter, etc.

 

 

For most music probably it's the frequency response rolloff that's the (main?) contribution to the difference in sound quality.  Somebody could probably explain all this a lot better than me.  I'm not really that versed in DSP.

post #180 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeaj View Post

Oh, the square waves.  You can kind of see the phase of the DAC reconstruction filter.

 

Though really, those aren't actually square waves, but bandlimited approximations of square waves, hence why there are (supposed to be) ripples.  Square waves have infinite bandwidth.  The correct interpretation of the following sequence of sample points at a given sampling rate: [1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1...] is not something with straight lines up and down and then flat parts (infinitely-fast changes require infinite bandwidth).  The Clip+ seems to be linear phase so it's symmetrical, while the iPod is minimum phase or at least something more towards that side (so the leading part has more energy in that instant).

 

Generally people don't really seem to hear in terms of really really small time steps like that, and they're not exactly that sensitive to phase differences like that, so it's really not an issue.  I'd be very careful about interpreting what stuff "looks" like when viewed in the time domain.  You can get all sorts of "distorted", misshapen forms that sound the same because hearing doesn't follow nice geometric shapes on a scope.

 

Actually, even with one of those dastardly oversampling DACs, you could get an output that looks more like the Tera Player if you really wanted, by using a higher sampling rate, processing everything through a filter, etc.

 

 

For most music probably it's the frequency response rolloff that's the (main?) contribution to the difference in sound quality.  Somebody could probably explain all this a lot better than me.  I'm not really that versed in DSP.

Thank you for the info. So the disparity noticed in the measurements are negligible at best?


Edited by uchihaitachi - 5/17/13 at 1:37pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Learning more about the science of sound