[kiteki]

 
I don't know what others have said, but if the THD, IMD, and noise aren't low, they will definitely be relevant to the final sound as perceived by people—unless maybe it's just 2nd harmonics that aren't really low.  One of the points of my previous post was that the SWR may look similar on paper, but may actually be hiding significant and audible differences because the y-axis is zoomed out so much, and the effect of the FR is so dominating on what the squiggles look like.  I wouldn't really say that the SWRs are nearly identical, but that the graphs look similar from a geometric point of view.  Anyway, how about 40 Hz square waves, 2000 Hz square waves, and so on?

 
That could all be well and true, 40Hz and 2000Hz square waves, and the geometric point of view, I don't disagree there, however given that perspective - the data we currently have at hand and the level of introspect required to find the differences between the MMM and LCD-3 renders the current data pretty useless.
 
There are more examples like I can't stand the Sony XBA-4 due to not having crossovers, this is not in the data.  I just look at the technology and usually find all the correct answers there.  The data also doesn't tell you the size, distance or shape of the transducers.  Let alone it doesn't show you resonance (like brass, titanium, wood etc.), perhaps that shows up in CSD ringing, however only looks like a negative effect.
 
Then, the data doesn't test for source transparency, how the transducers "ink" the signal with their own sound - all the time.
 
Let alone I haven't found any common pattern in the data of BA drivers, dynamic drivers, ortho and stax, there really should be a common pattern for these, since it's so audible within 5 seconds via listening, right?
 
FR is useful for volume across frequency (=colour balance), THD+N for noise (like a weak TV channel signal) - IR for what, refresh rate, attack and decay, resonance? Idk.
 
A lot of people are attached to the idea data is total in all fields of science, so if it's not on paper = it doesn't exist.  I've tried to hit home this point with examples like subliminal advertising or human reaction times and it's just not working in[size=small] "› [/size]Sound Science[size=small] › [/size]Dilemma".
 
 

Originally Posted by mikeaj /img/forum/go_quote.gif  
The point you make about today's notions of transparency being based on currently-available playback gear has some merit though.  We have imperfect transducers mucking up all our listening tests.  Maybe they're masking issues that would otherwise be audible.  I think some people are taking the whole transparency idea too seriously anyway.

 
Exactly.
 
Thanks!  Now I'm leaving this thread.

 

[frenchbat]

Kiteki, I'm really wondering why you keep referring to my posts if you think they're jokes. Although I have to admit I'm using irony in my answers, but only when you're referring to me as "pseudo-science follower", or someone that "twists comments", which could be clearly seen as ad hominem arguments. However, for once, you tried to really answer my question, and I thank you for that, at least you read my post this time.

I'm just gonna focus on the quotes, because it's the basic point of disagreement here. You say your debaters are backing up the following ideas : "Everything is measurable right now" and "We already know everything about music".

But at no point they have actually backed up such ideas, what they are backing up is that :
1. Even though we don't know everything about audio, it doesn't disqualifies the phenomenons that have been evidenced by the audio science.
2. Science is not static, but that doesn't mean that all previous results are invalidated by the results of the last experience.
3. I would add that they're also backing up the idea that one single measurement is not enough to describe everything. As MikeAJ said earlier, you can't take one single measurement and call it a day. Headphone A might look similar to headphone B in test X, but there're also tests Y, Z, etc ... to compare. it's only when you take all the measurements, that you can begin making correlations, which again are not total descriptions.

As a consequence, with regards to the previous ideas, they are backing up that measurements are a valuable tools that should correlate to what we hear, i.e. show a relation between measurements and audio reproduction, not describe it in totality as you are saying they imply. One doesn't imply the other. They are also backing up that we probably don't know everything about audio, Maverickronin in particular, but also that until proven otherwise, the actual science stands. That's why they are asking for experiences showing results contradictory to the actual science. I'm actually pretty sure they'd die for results that could extend our knowledge of audio reproduction in any way.

It's quite rare to have an experience invalidating a whole chunk of science, and in another thread I gave you the example of one the last big science revolutions, Einstein's relativity, which has not invalidated the results of the previous big theory from Newton, but put them in a different perspective. All the while extending our knowledge of physics.

All they are saying here is : Let's not throw away the baby with the water of the bath, shall we ?

Ok that said, I'll be out of the country for 10 days, so my dear Kiteki you'll be able to discuss freely with anyone without me twisting anything. Enjoy !!

 

[kiteki]

*pat pat*
 

but only when you're referring to me as "pseudo-science follower"

 

[frenchbat]

I thought you were out of here

(All credits to XKCD for this wonderful piece).

*pat pat*

 

[kiteki]

and I thought you were in Korea to revalidate your... POV.
 
have fun with the... ramen.

 

[frenchbat]

No can do Sir ! I prefer tonkotsu ramen, as my wife actually. Especially Hakata ramen.

and I thought you were in Korea to revalidate your... POV.

have fun with the... ramen.

 

[kiteki]

-

 

[liamstrain]

Quote:

if it's not on paper = it doesn't exist.

 
 
Wrong. We say if it is truly audible, it can be shown on paper. There is a difference.

 

[Chris J]

Quote:

 
 
Wrong. We say if it is truly audible, it can be shown on paper. There is a difference.

 
I suppose you could argue that we may not have figured out how to measure everything yet.
 
For example:
It took the world a while to catch up with Jitter, it's effects and how to measure it.
 
it took the world a while to catch up with how bad the first SS amps sounded. Have you ever heard of an SS stereo amp from the Sixties being a collector's item?

 

[Tilpo]

I suppose you could argue that we may not have figured out how to measure everything yet.

For example:
It took the world a while to catch up with Jitter, it's effects and how to measure it.

it took the world a while to catch up with how bad the first SS amps sounded. Have you ever heard of an SS stereo amp from the Sixties being a collector's item?

The effects of jitter tend to approximate to noise when playing music, and is usually below the audible threshold. Therefore it is not really worth the trouble trying to measure it, since usually the noise floor of the other components tends to be higher at a given frequency.

Also, as far as I know mathematical models of the effects of jitter exist for a very long time, and are very accurate.

 

[liamstrain]

Quote:

 
I suppose you could argue that we may not have figured out how to measure everything yet.
 
For example:
It took the world a while to catch up with Jitter, it's effects and how to measure it.
 
it took the world a while to catch up with how bad the first SS amps sounded. Have you ever heard of an SS stereo amp from the Sixties being a collector's item?

 
I suppose you could argue it, but I don't know how convincing an argument it would be. 
 
Jitter, for example, I do not consider audible (it is below the noise floor of almost all components ever made), and we have been able to map it very well without measurements. 
 
Yes - but we can now (and could then) measure the first SS amps - you can see on paper how bad they are - so far, you are proving my point.

 

[firev1]

Quote:

 
I suppose you could argue that we may not have figured out how to measure everything yet.
 
For example:
It took the world a while to catch up with Jitter, it's effects and how to measure it.
 
it took the world a while to catch up with how bad the first SS amps sounded. Have you ever heard of an SS stereo amp from the Sixties being a collector's item?

That being said, I wonder what is next. Come to think of it, I think one other place we have yet to touch into deeply is the shape of acoustic wavefronts, which one yields a more natural sound in headphones? I think it has been explored by the likes of Sennheiser/Stax/blah somewhat but not documented yet.
 
Jitter really took a long time to be accepted by AES, but continuous objective proof and test change their minds eventually. 
 
I do agree with you on the XBA-4 kiteki, when I first tried it, I was disappointed with the midrange. Steve says they are good but I really have to disagree when the XBA-3 sounds better. On another note,is the data on XBA-4?  
 
ps. I have silk tweeters ready, anyone would like to donate a titanium one?
 
Edit: Thanks frenchbat for summarising everything up for us.

 

[Magick Man]

I suppose you could argue that we may not have figured out how to measure everything yet.

For example:
It took the world a while to catch up with Jitter, it's effects and how to measure it.

it took the world a while to catch up with how bad the first SS amps sounded. Have you ever heard of an SS stereo amp from the Sixties being a collector's item?

There are some McIntosh's from that era which are, but not that many.

 

[bigshot]

Some people make a fetish of Marantz equipment too, but I suspect it's for reasons other than sound

 

[El_Doug]

While your point is coming across loud and clear, from a purely logical perspective, there IS NO DIFFERENCE  
 
A=>B is the same as ~B=>~A
 
thus, "If it is truly audible, then it can be shown on paper" is equivalent to saying, "If it can't be shown on paper, it is not truly audible." 
 
Quote:

 
Wrong. We say if it is truly audible, it can be shown on paper. There is a difference.