bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
i havent disproving anything
Yes
i havent disproving anything
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.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?
What songs only have a single tone or only test signals?what about that one songs that plays a sinustone?
you guys are funny... now im not a cheater anymore but i obviously listen to the wrong test signals/songs lmaoEven 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.
i never said ONLY testsignals ....What songs only have a single tone or only test signals?
i still dont get your stupid talking around the actual thing, i guess you can feel superior nowA 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”!
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 trollingLess so when it's for a made up statement.
i dont care if someone thinks i cheated they can think what they want, honestlyI understand that you don't like the insinuations about you cheating the test.
yes, for me it seemed like you wanted to "suggest" that science actually aknowledges audible distortioning tubeampsDid you read my post? What is it making reference to? Now read your reply.
i guess we leave it now at this and you guys can continue the thread...But it's no excuse to spiral down into complete nonsense.
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.either i leave all the shitposts uncommented or it always ends like this with bigshot and gregorio playing science police
You promised that before and yet a page later and here you are, still trolling the same strawman!i guess we leave it now at this and you guys can continue the thread...
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!
what BS? that i made this friggin test got -69 and state that science probably doesnt agree?but don’t just keep trolling the same BS!
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.
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).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.
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...”?!what BS?
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?BTW you are still free to correct me "with some facts" here