[bigshot]

i havent disproving anything

Yes

 

[Ghoostknight]

Yes

 

[gregorio]

how is reaching in a test -69db and showing some other test testing at -21dB not proofing the fact that i reached -69dB in the one test, what stupid arguments are this?

A great question, “what stupid arguments are this” indeed! You obviously did not read the conditions I stated (which are always stated or implied) and therefore your argument is indeed as you put it: “stupid”! Even more so because you are arguing in a sound science forum when you clearly don’t know the science, for example you don’t seem to know why we use test tones/signals.

what about that one songs that plays a sinustone?

What songs only have a single tone or only test signals?

G

 

[Ghoostknight]

Even more so because you are arguing in a sound science forum when you clearly don’t know the science, for example you don’t seem to know why we use test tones/signals.

you guys are funny... now im not a cheater anymore but i obviously listen to the wrong test signals/songs lmao

What songs only have a single tone or only test signals?

i never said ONLY testsignals ....

A great question, “what stupid arguments are this” indeed! You obviously did not read the conditions I stated (which are always stated or implied) and therefore your argument is indeed as you put it: “stupid”!

i still dont get your stupid talking around the actual thing, i guess you can feel superior now

 

[bigshot]

Well, I’m impressed!

 

[Ghoostknight]

Well actually now i feel stupid, i already tested tube distortion at -70db a while back and it was just as audible.... i also guess this explains why there are so much tube lovers, exactly, because science says tube distortion is mostly inaudible...... FACT! good luck....

 

[castleofargh]

I really don't like this "science says" thing. Less so when it's for a made up statement.

 

[Ghoostknight]

Less so when it's for a made up statement.

well it should be clear to normal thinking people that my "-70db" suggested low distortion levels, why are you objectivists people like that? its actually quite disturbing how words get turned around non stop with no other reason than trolling

 

[castleofargh]

I understand that you don't like the insinuations about you cheating the test. I sympathize with that and TBH if it's a problem for you, I can remove the posts.
But it's no excuse to spiral down into complete nonsense. Did you read my post? What is it making reference to? Now read your reply.

 

[Ghoostknight]

I understand that you don't like the insinuations about you cheating the test.

i dont care if someone thinks i cheated they can think what they want, honestly
but either i leave all the shitposts uncommented or it always ends like this with bigshot and gregorio playing science police

Did you read my post? What is it making reference to? Now read your reply.

yes, for me it seemed like you wanted to "suggest" that science actually aknowledges audible distortioning tubeamps
thats why i hinted to the -70db, since im pretty sure its not so clear anymore with that kind of level, tho i could have said it nicer
if i missunderstood your "suggesting" im sorry, tho it just seemed like the usual gregorio move, dissecting text and finding some more or less errors to throw it back...

But it's no excuse to spiral down into complete nonsense.

i guess we leave it now at this and you guys can continue the thread...

 

[gregorio]

either i leave all the shitposts uncommented or it always ends like this with bigshot and gregorio playing science police

Isn’t it obvious by now? Don’t make all the shitposts in the first place, all this BS “science says” or “this Sound Science forum says”, when in fact neither science nor us “says” that, you are yet again just making up false statements in order to troll a strawman.

i guess we leave it now at this and you guys can continue the thread...

You promised that before and yet a page later and here you are, still trolling the same strawman!

Clearly you don’t know or understand the well established science, so either ask, go away and find out for yourself or go away and forget about it but don’t just keep trolling the same BS!

G

 

[Ghoostknight]

Like how on earth could someone ignore this crap?

Don’t make all the shitposts in the first place

you are yet again just making up false statements in order to troll a strawman

You promised that before and yet a page later and here you are, still trolling the same strawman!

but don’t just keep trolling the same BS!

what BS? that i made this friggin test got -69 and state that science probably doesnt agree?
BTW you are still free to correct me "with some facts" here

 

[KinGensai]

This is an impractical question given how frequency responses are mostly measured with sine sweeps that most tools will make an impulse response out of(and CSD or whatever else, BTW). That makes it unlikely that you acquired FR without also getting the IR.
To be clear, while they are an expression of the same thing in freq and time domains, they do not fully define a transducer! Some non-linear stuff are left out.

If I extract the FR I measured into frequency samples, I have frequency, amplitude, and phase in that data.

That EQ adjustment mostly targets the decay of that specific frequency; it is very narrow band. The causal relationship is clear; if you change the FR and the phase information/impulse response changes accordingly. If there is a causal relationship, science will make sure that you can calculate the effect from the cause.

I found this very technical answer on stackexchange that gives a mathematical exposition of the relationship between frequency response and impulse response. The conclusion is that they are inter-convertible for linear time-invariant systems, which IEMs are (minimum-phase systems are a subset of linear time-invariant systems). https://dsp.stackexchange.com/quest...stems-impulse-response-and-frequency-response. This essentially means that if you know the one, you know the other. I don't know if you still have doubt at this point? The crucial conclusion in that answer is this:

So, given either a system's impulse response or its frequency response, you can calculate the other. Either one is sufficient to fully characterize the behavior of the system; the impulse response is useful when operating in the time domain and the frequency response is useful when analyzing behavior in the frequency domain.​

I'm not a math Asian so I'm trying to wrap my head around this a bit ineptly, but I can't help but think an assumption is being made here that multi-driver systems that combine different driver operating principles are by definition minimum phase because they are indistinguishable from another? Mathematically reconstructing the IR from the FR in a continuous time function like audio transducers seems to require several assumptions like this which I don't believe are necessarily true, although I can feasibly conceptualize the inverse being true (you can derive the FR by conducting a fourier transform of the IR).

If the multi-driver configuration consists of multiple drivers with the same operating principle properly phase aligned at the nozzle, I can get to the system being assumed to be minimum phase. What I don't think is correct is assuming that hybrid and tribrid configurations are automatically minimum phase because of discrepancies in performance characteristics between operating principles which further complicates the issue.

I'll have to process and read some more on this to understand. I can get to the same measurement methodology (sine sweep recording) producing multiple graphs, that makes sense because all the data is there to calculate the FR, IR, CSD, THD, and whatever else. I'm just struggling to understand how you could extrapolate the system's behavior from just the FR.

 

[bigshot]

You can feel free to delete my posts calling a spade a spade, but his squirrely games make him look less than honest a lot more than my posts do. Online, people use anonymity to play games. You can clearly see what proportion of people are working the system in the left hand column of that chart. It isn’t a lot of people. It’s just a handful that cause most of the problems.

When people like this are allowed to self aggrandizingly parade around making uncontovertably false claims and personal attacks on forum regulars, this is what we get. Everything grinds to a halt. The problem isn’t the false claims nor the attacks, it’s that they have no interest in the general discussion. They only want to tear down and draw attention to themselves. It’s an attitude thing and it isn’t at all subtle. We all can spot it quickly. If they don’t want to participate as part of the group, they should be invited to go to a forum that will appreciate them more.

 

[gregorio]

what BS?

How is it possible that you don’t know “what BS”, when you made it up yourself? How is your response anything other than yet more BS, especially as you stated “i guess we leave it now at this and you guys can continue the thread...”?!

BTW you are still free to correct me "with some facts" here

Why? I already tried that in my first post to you (#236) and all that illicited was a bunch of BS, so what’s the point of trying to correct you with some facts again?

G