[b0dhi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiisinux /img/forum/go_quote.gif hello pseudoscience first of all how thos grado drivers are matched isnt mentitioned they could be matched for that 0.05db at 100khz or 5hz not mentitioned... so it has no worth... and anyways ild (interaural level differences) is one of contributing factor for spatial sound in headphones...

Sorry, pseudoscience? How exactly is comparing a measurement to observation pseudoscience? That's called empirical evidence and it's the basis of real science. I know the matching technique isn't specific, nor is the distortion type specified for the Sennheisers.

If you read the next paragraph you'd see my point was outlined exactly so that I wouldn't have to clarify as I'm doing right now:

Quote:

My point is, just because a number seems low on a spec sheet, it doesn't mean we can't hear it, and it doesn't tell you the whole story on how it will relate back to hearing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slwiser /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh Well back on the farm... and Getting back to my personal favorite subject damping..... I was rereading a web page by David Berning where he shows that his amp's design make the load appear to be 4000 ohms to the amp and the amp at the same time to appear to have an impedance of 0.6 ohms. This results in an extremely high damping factor.

That's one of the reasons why I'm really looking forward to comparing the TakeT H2 with the GS1000. As far as I know, the H2 doesn't generate a significant reactive current, and if there's a big difference in bass definition between the two, dampening factor will likely be the cause. At low frequencies the differences in speed between the two drivers aren't as important, whereas dampening is most obvious at those frequencies. Should be interesting

 

[slwiser]

The David Berning Zero-Hysteresis Amplifier Series is the source of the numbers above.
[size=xx-small]
[/size]

 

[TheVinylRipper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif -50dB * -30db = -80dB. Note the minus in -30. When making an assertion of mathematical fact (or any fact), it's good to make sure it's meaningful enough to be falsifiable.

-50 * -30= 1500

Quote:

Getting back to the point, I think DBT is not ideal in all circumstances. For example, it takes me about 3 weeks of relaxed listening to get an idea of the the subtler qualities of a particular amp.

Right.

 

[TheVinylRipper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by slwiser /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was rereading a web page by David Berning where he shows that his amp's design make the load appear to be 4000 ohms to the amp and the amp at the same time to appear to have an impedance of 0.6 ohms. This results in an extremely high damping factor.

I would be interested in reading that too, do you have a link?

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Getting back to the point, I think DBT is not ideal in all circumstances. For example, it takes me about 3 weeks of relaxed listening to get an idea of the the subtler qualities of a particular amp.

What you would think of a DBT design that was unconstrained by time? For example, suppose a DBT design allowed you to spend as much time as you wanted to with each piece of gear being compared before actually engaging in the test itself, and then placed no constraints on the amount of time you took to do the comparison for each trial? So, for example, you could spend three weeks with each of two amps to learn the sound, and then you could spend as much time as you wanted to listening to each during each trial? It seems to me that would be an interesting experiment that would remove many of the objections that are typically raised to double-blind testing of this type of gear.

I understand that there would be some practical problems with such a test (for example, it could take a long time to complete 12 trials), but assuming that those problems could be addressed, do you think that such a test would yield meaningful results?

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif What you would think of a DBT design that was unconstrained by time? For example, suppose a DBT design allowed you to spend as much time as you wanted to with each piece of gear being compared before actually engaging in the test itself, and then placed no constraints on the amount of time you took to do the comparison for each trial? So, for example, you could spend three weeks with each of two amps to learn the sound, and then you could spend as much time as you wanted to listening to each during each trial? It seems to me that would be an interesting experiment that would remove many of the objections that are typically raised to double-blind testing of this type of gear. I understand that there would be some practical problems with such a test (for example, it could take a long time to complete 12 trials), but assuming that those problems could be addressed, do you think that such a test would yield meaningful results?

Not a bad idea. Doing so would, in my mind, further validate the DBT.

 

[mercbuggy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by greggf /img/forum/go_quote.gif Vinyl sez: "You may shout if you wish, the fact remains that double blind testing is an effective way to separate reality from imagination." Most of what Vinyl is calling "reality" IS imagination, however! "Imagination" is not an inferior realm. I know a lot of you here are threatened by imagination, probably because you can't see it, measure it, or, most importantly, control it. And control is all-important to people for whom the imagination is inaccessible or distant. In other words, imagination is what makes people human. It's soul. I daresay that the bottom line is, when you get right down to it, envy. Envy of those who possess imagination and, quite frankly, envy of those who possess more money or credit. Vinyl has sadistically started a thread in which he tries, in a sterile academic manner, to justify or prove, defensively, his lack of imagination and either his lack of finances or else his innate tightwaddedness. He wants us to experience life as flatly as he does. Those of you who are young need to take a long look at what you want to be at 60 years old. Do you want to be exciting, complex, attractive, passionate? Or a bean counter, an accountant, an old fart in a white lab coat, somebody as obsessed in your old age with taking tests as you were in middle school? Meawhile, I'm powerful. I can make tubes sound warm and transistors sound cold, even beyond the fact that they do in subtle ways. I can make silver faceplates sound detailed and copper cable sound euphonic. I can imagine that my cat loves me, the winter wind is warm, and that death is not the final chapter. I am music.

Regarding imagination, I would agree that imagination and imaginative creativity are not inferior and in many cases has bridged the gap between the known and unknown. Imagination and vision have often initiated mans greatest achievements.

As for envy, sadistic intent et al, I see none and no intention to hurt anyone for one's own pleasure (sexually or otherwise). If the intent was to elicit a response (surely the function of a forum) and debate then it has worked. I have myself learnt from this thread that there are those here to learn, debate and enjoy a DIVERSE community. There are others who are quick to riposte with thinly veiled vitriolic nonsense. I would definitely feel defensive if I was the OP

.

If you are coming from a position of comparable life experience as the OP then I welcome your more esoteric view of the world to bring balance to this thread. Are you with the older generation or with the young?

As for being powerful, do the tomato plants help with this and your sound shaping abilities? nudge nudge

.

I am pretty sure my cats love me and the other people they regularly visit in my street

. I have found it to be a reality of cat ownership.

The 'dawn chorus' is a magical contribution to the start of my day, it's 'music' has been created with no imagination whatsoever but that makes it no less wonderful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slwiser /img/forum/go_quote.gif From your profile: Profiles can provide much context for what people say and how it is said. I am very glad that you supplied that context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SysteX /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's a shame that all you can see in his post are personal insults.

From the OP's profile, please read curmudgeon. Self confessed and comfortable in his own shoes, so why so many insults?

It's going to take me weeks to investigate all the links and disseminate the real debate in this thread. Many thanks for the opportunity to expand ones understanding on this subject.

 

[b0dhi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif What you would think of a DBT design that was unconstrained by time? For example, suppose a DBT design allowed you to spend as much time as you wanted to with each piece of gear being compared before actually engaging in the test itself, and then placed no constraints on the amount of time you took to do the comparison for each trial? So, for example, you could spend three weeks with each of two amps to learn the sound, and then you could spend as much time as you wanted to listening to each during each trial? It seems to me that would be an interesting experiment that would remove many of the objections that are typically raised to double-blind testing of this type of gear. I understand that there would be some practical problems with such a test (for example, it could take a long time to complete 12 trials), but assuming that those problems could be addressed, do you think that such a test would yield meaningful results?

Absolutely. Assuming that the test-takers were honest and didn't open up the amp, that would be a very thorough test and I'd support it. Any idea if something similar to this has been done before?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheVinylRipper /img/forum/go_quote.gif -50 * -30= 1500

The values I stated were decibel figures, denoted by the "dB" following each of them. You are multiplying the figures without consideration of that:

(-50dB) (-30dB) (-80dB)
0.00316 * 0.0316 = 0.000100

 

[Arjisme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif the difference between -80 and -50 dB is -30dB, which is a voltage gain of 0.0316, not 31.6. I understand now this is now your 2nd error out of 2 math-related posts in this thread?

Actually, the statement VR made that you quoted was "5) The difference between -50 dB and -80 dB is 30 dB. " So you've changed what he said before saying he made a math error.

Difference between A and B = A - B.
Difference between -80 and -50 = (-80) - (-50) = -80 + 50 = -30.

Difference between -50 and -80 = (-50) - (-80) = -50 + 80 = 30.

I see no math error here.

I looked at the decibel calculator site and entered both -30 and 30 dB and certainly got different voltage gains (.0316 and 31.6, respectively).

Perhaps we have an application of math error, though. I am no expert on this stuff, so a clarification would be helpful.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Absolutely. Assuming that the test-takers were honest and didn't open up the amp, that would be a very thorough test and I'd support it. Any idea if something similar to this has been done before?

I don't recall ever reading of such a test actually being conducted. I do recall reading something about a switchbox that someone designed that would allow this sort of test.

 

[b0dhi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjisme /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, the statement VR made that you quoted was "5) The difference between -50 dB and -80 dB is 30 dB. " So you've changed what he said before saying he made a math error. Difference between A and B = A - B. Difference between -80 and -50 = (-80) - (-50) = -80 + 50 = -30. Difference between -50 and -80 = (-50) - (-80) = -50 + 80 = 30. I see no math error here. I looked at the decibel calculator site and entered both -30 and 30 dB and certainly got different voltage gains (.0316 and 31.6, respectively). Perhaps we have an application of math error, though. I am no expert on this stuff, so a clarification would be helpful.

It wasn't strictly a math error, but only because it was too vague to be. Strictly speaking, the "difference" between two logarithms is different depending on the direction, since it's a ratio.

For example, the difference between 10 and 5 is either +5 or -5, but either way you know it's 5. For a logarithm, saying the "difference" isn't informative, much like saying the "division" of 10 and 5 doesn't make sense - it could either be 10/5 = 2, or 5/10 = 0.5.

 

[Arjisme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Strictly speaking, the "difference" between two logarithms is different depending on the direction, since it's a ratio. For example, the difference between 10 and 5 is either +5 or -5, but either way you know it's 5. For a logarithm, saying the "difference" isn't informative, much like saying the "division" of 10 and 5 doesn't make sense - it could either be 10/5 = 2, or 5/10 = 0.5.

OK, that's helpful. So what matters in this case is the absolute difference? If so, that would be 30dB, right?

 

[SysteX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjisme /img/forum/go_quote.gif OK, that's helpful. So what matters in this case is the absolute difference? If so, that would be 30dB, right?

Eh, kind of. When dealing with logs:

Log(A) - Log(B) = Log(A/B)

Similarly, Log(B) - Log(A) = Log(B/A)

Even though we are (ostensibly) dealing with fractions, it is indeed true that

Log(A/B) = -Log(B/A)

 

[TheVinylRipper]

I would have no problem with a DBT with the subject's own gear, if that would make any difference in comfort level.

 

[TheVinylRipper]

Adding or subtracting the logs of two numbers is equivalent to multiplying or dividing the numbers themselves.