“Dude, I came from a different engineering discipline (nothing to do with audio) where folks could die if we make a coupla innocent li’l mistakes. Hence, extreme levels of rigor was required and we couldn’t afford to do any kind of fake parade like you.”
wow you are so cool. I am in awe…
”In fact, i was hinting on some phenomena we’ve studied in another discipline for other applications (nothing do do with audio), which clearly should have some implication for audio. Some apparently celebrated speaker designers i’ve spoken to had never heard of it (got real glazy eyed when i brought it up).”
what you misidentified as a Doppler effect is wave interference. It’s about as basic as it gets. If there really are speaker designers that are unaware of it stay the hell away from their products. It’s pretty basic stuff in speaker design. It doesn’t just happen with sound in the ultrasonic range. Nor does it just happen with tones that are close in frequency. It’s an issue with multi-driver integration. The overlapping wave forms can do the same thing. It’s also something we live with, well most audiophiles live with because of the interaction between two speakers. It’s called comb filtering. Again this is audio 101. Jeez it used to be how people tuned guitars.
“I am guessing internet warrior Scott had never heard of it either. But, here he is, pretending to be the instantaneous expert.”
and you would be guessing wrong. I never claimed to be any kind of expert either. But if knowing about wave interactions where you set the bar…
|
“I understood by your own post claims that you are an expert in cable transparency”
That is *your* misunderstanding. It does not take any kind of expertise to understand cable transparency.
”and an advocate of blind tests as the main solution to all subjectivist audiophiles superstitions ... No ?”
I am an advocate of blind protocols in any testing for differences or preferences. Has nothing to do with subjectivism vs objectivism. Terms which are mostly misused to identify with audiophiles that accept science in audio vs those who reject it. But even more so than that I am an advocate of time synchronized quick switching comparisons. Both are vital for getting reliable results. How other audiophiles choose to do their comparisons is on them.
|
“Ah yes, indeed....Scott’s got Chat GPT and some AI support these days at his fingertips...”
Are you really so bedazzled by a very basic understanding of wave interaction that you would think it is so unreachable that my comments which were right off the top of my head would require Chat GPT or some AI to access? Ok….. that really is a low bar. That’s hilarious.
|
Emotional investment in one’s beliefs can bring out the worst in people. For instance I know, as much as it can be known that basic cables are audibly transparent although it is possible to make cables with high enough inductance, capacitance and/or resistance to turn a cable into a low pass filter. I know as much as something can be known that power cords make no actual difference unless the gauge is too low to power the component ad needed. I can say these things with zero vitriol but one can count on some very uncivil responses. And fingers will point my way in accusation of uncivil behavior. And it goes both ways. Emotional investment can do that to people. Simple statements of fact will seem like a personal offense.
|
The inability to accept that one might be wrong goes hand in hand with an emotional investment in one’s beliefs.
|
“But when you have made an investment in equipment with low noise floors that have been tested to a -140 db.”
“I didn’t want to brag about what I have or what my equipment has been measured to do. Because no matter what I say some people will get offended. In my system there is a scientific and audible difference in what I’m hearing because of the highly resolving systems with cables that match that throughout.”
-140 db is certainly an amazing SNR for any component. What is the actual DR/ SNR of your system measured from the listening position?
|
“ Your way of quick switching is just a parlor trick, whereas the one you said I made up was actually done by the real experts.”
Real experts know that the gold standard for scientific studies isn’t a “parlor trick” and understand why time synchronized quick switching comparisons are mandatory for comparisons. Since you seem to actually acknowledge
Toole and Olive as actual legitimate science why don’t you read u on what they have to say about it. I’ll give you a hint, there is a reason HK spent 7 figures on their speaker shuffler to do DBT comparisons. Do some real research for a change
|
“Those of us who buy things - and want feedback from others who own similar equipment - are at a loss to find fellow users in all the bullshit of "power conditioners dont work" "cables are a waste of money" bullshit form those who have never owned these things.”
What about the ones who have owned them?
I think the Hoffman forums cater to what you are looking for in likeminded audiophiles
|
How was suggesting the Hoffman forums an “argument?”
|
“Dealer, audiophile, owner or hobbyist. Just treat people with respect no matter what. Show civility no matter what.”
Do your words sound respectful to you?
”People can be deebo behind these keyboards. Because you are right you got to have a motive or be a shill. Put your earbuds in and accept that you might be wrong. Nastiness on steroids”
” Some people have taken the joy out of the forum and the hobby. Trying to ram inexperienced comments down your throat.”
” If you have not owned the really good stuff you haven’t had the experience to truly comment on what smthg is or isn’t doing. My Dac is one of the most expensive out there our Method 4.”
What I from your words here and in other threads are often uncivil and disrespectful. What do you actually know of other peoples’ experience or the quality of their sound systems? Have you heard the sound systems of the folks you demean as inexperienced? Who is the arbitrator of “really good stuff?”
“I think the inability to accept that one might be wrong is the bigger problem.”
Do you think this also applies to you? Or does it only apply to audiophiles who disagree with you? Respect and civility are two way streets. Maybe you don’t see your comments as disrespectful but I have a hunch that if I said you were “ramming inexperienced comments down our throats” and that you have never owned or experienced “really good stuff” you would probably find it disrespectful and uncivil.
|
“I can’t tell you how many times to comment but I will tell you I would never take any audio or life advice from you.”
I’m crushed.
But if I were to advise you I’d suggest selling everything you have, save up and then modify your room so that it is an actual excellent acoustic space and get what I have. But that would probably come off as uncivil and disrespectful so I will refrain from offering such advice.
|
“ I’m not going to let a guy tell me cable’s don’t affect the sound and not take him to task on it.”
Basic cables that are competently built are audibly transparent. Some cables, be it by accident or design will color the sound. If you want to “take me to task” on it feel free to do so. Let’s see if you can do so with the civility you so lament is missing on audio forums and with the respect you expect from others. I am more than happy to argue my position purely on verifiable objective facts.
|
Spell check strikes again. Null test not bull test. Although there was something serendipitous aboythat one
|
“ But I’m not going to trust someone in the internet who has not heard the difference it makes in my system that I listen to everyday.”
I would not expect you or anyone else to “take my word” on this or anything else. It’s not about “my word.” As for the difference your cables make in your system, I would not take your word or anyone else’s either. Verifiable facts are not built on anecdotal evidence. First we would have to actually measure the transfer function of your cables. *Your* cables may very well be audibly colored. If they are then they do indeed make a difference. Mine are not. The transfer function of my cables have no audible distortions. No one has to take anyone’s word. It’s all objectively testable. And no one has to test anything if they are satisfied with anecdotal evidence.
|
“All cables are equal, but some cables are more equal than others.”
Actually they aren’t. Some cables, often “high end” ones do audibly color the sound.
“In that case, how do you know if the cables are either transparent or color the sound?”
Fair question. One can look at the multitude of controlled listening tests that demonstrate it. One can look at bull tests and see or literally hear it. One can do their own controlled tests if they like. I have done a few of them. Some of which would have revealed *any* audible differences were there any to be heard.
|
“it’s like talking to someone you don’t know. Commenting on something you haven’t heard in an environment you never been in then saying there is not a difference.”
No Calvin, it’s not like that. It’s like informing someone who thinks they can see microwaves and x-rays that human vision is limited to red through violet wave lengths. It’s like telling someone who claims they can run 100 mph that no human can run faster than 23-25 mph. There is nothing extraordinary about your stereo or the stereos of other audiophiles or your hearing acuity or the hearing acuity of other audiophiles that is unknown, unresearched or magical. Human hearing thresholds are not mysterious unknown quantities. It’s also well known and documented that humans will tend to perceive differences where none exist when hearing the same thing with a time gap in between samples when listening for differences. That is normal for human beings. So it’s like telling you that you are a normal human being like the rest of us. And there is nothing uncivil about informing audiophiles about these realities. It’s actually very useful information.
|
It almost sounds like you're living with absolute certainty that we know norhing. That none of the 100+ years of research in psychoacoustics taught us anything at all about human aural perception. “Let us assume that you can't hear 20khz or above?” It’s not an assumption. Literally millions of human beings have been tested for their frequency range. It’s almost like saying “let’s assume gravity is a real thing.” Do you really think wave interference patterns that affect the sound in the audible range are a mystery that none of us ever knew about and are mysterious and unmeasurable? If ultra frequency sounds manifest a wave within the audible range we hear it, if it isn’t masked, and we can measure it. AND any basic cable will transmit it without any audible distortion.
going back to the early days of Bell Labs about 100 years ago to current times there has been a massive amount of research on what we hear and don’t hear. We know for example that the total distortion in a basic audio cable is so low that it’s hard to say for sure if what is being measured is actual distortion or just thermal noise. It’s around -140 db. We also know that no human being can come close to hearing any noise or distortion at -140 db. And there is no recording or source component either digital or analog that can produce a signal that doesn’t add at least 20-30 db of noise and distortion. Analog sources in particular aren’t anywhere near that. And we have numerous controlled tests that clearly demonstrate this inaudibility.
We also know, based on a large body of research that humans can not accurately compare an aural memory to real time sound. Not even close. And we know through other studies that it is a cause for humans, all humans, to misidentify differences in sound where none exist.
“There are indeed all kinds of PhDs working 16 hour days doing research. What is really dumb is to think that they continually miss real audible phenomena that is only detected by audiophiles under non controlled conditions.
Did you know that for GPS to even work they have to use algorithms to make real time adjustments for time dilation due to special relativity? The sati lights are literally experiencing time at a different rate of Han we do on the ground because of the speed of their orbit Do you have any idea the level of sophistication and degree of precision that requires? Do you think the same scientific research and engineering that allows for that is missing something in cable transfer function that only audiophiles are detecting?
|
“you can hear my system through this forum post? Ok I get it !”
I don’t think you get it. Nothing I said could even remotely be interpreted as me claiming to be able to hear your system through your posts. I don’t need to hear your system to know that basic cables are audibly transparent. There is nothing about your system that changes that fact. You may very well be using audibly colored cables. I don’t know. But I’m here are some high priced cables that do act as low pass filters and audibly chandelier the signal. I do know mine are audibly transparent.
|
It almost sounds like you're living with absolute certainty that we know norhing. That none of the 100+ years of research in psychoacoustics taught us anything at all about human aural perception. “Let us assume that you can't hear 20khz or above?” It’s not an assumption. Literally millions of human beings have been tested for their frequency range. It’s almost like saying “let’s assume gravity is a real thing.” Do you really think wave interference patterns that affect the sound in the audible range are a mystery that none of us ever knew about and are mysterious and unmeasurable? If ultra frequency sounds manifest a wave within the audible range we hear it, if it isn’t masked, and we can measure it. AND any basic cable will transmit it without any audible distortion.
going back to the early days of Bell Labs about 100 years ago to current times there has been a massive amount of research on what we hear and don’t hear. We know for example that the total distortion in a basic audio cable is so low that it’s hard to say for sure if what is being measured is actual distortion or just thermal noise. It’s around -140 db. We also know that no human being can come close to hearing any noise or distortion at -140 db. And there is no recording or source component either digital or analog that can produce a signal that doesn’t add at least 20-30 db of noise and distortion. Analog sources in particular aren’t anywhere near that. And we have numerous controlled tests that clearly demonstrate this inaudibility.
We also know, based on a large body of research that humans can not accurately compare an aural memory to real time sound. Not even close. And we know through other studies that it is a cause for humans, all humans, to misidentify differences in sound where none exist.
“There are indeed all kinds of PhDs working 16 hour days doing research. What is really dumb is to think that they continually miss real audible phenomena that is only detected by audiophiles under non controlled conditions.
Did you know that for GPS to even work they have to use algorithms to make real time adjustments for time dilation due to special relativity? The sati lights are literally experiencing time at a different rate of Han we do on the ground because of the speed of their orbit Do you have any idea the level of sophistication and degree of precision that requires? Do you think the same scientific research and engineering that allows for that is missing something in cable transfer function that only audiophiles are detecting?
|
“The analogies he (scotty) comes up are always good for a laugh. He thinks himself clever by insulting members by way of insinuation, using obviously delusional claims and conflating them with what we claim when listening.”
If you feel insulted when faced with objective reality that’s your baggage. What is laughable is that you would whine about being insulted while calling me delusional in the same post. I don’t really care but the irony is amusing.
|
“Hopefully you understand Relativity , including special doesn’t explain everything….”
Hopefully you understand I didn’t make any claims that special relativity *explains* anything in audio. Hopefully you understand that I was pointing out the degree of precision needed to process and transmit real time compensation as an example of the depth of understanding we have of signal processing and transmission
|
“ Dr. Choueiri the last genius in musical acoustic taught after many others psychoacoustics dont explain even the way we identify sound qualities... ( scottwheel will not contradict me about Choueiri he own the BACCH filters) 😊”
that’s not true at all. Edgar is one of the top researchers in spatial perception. He can tell you how in great detail how we identify sound qualities. He has conducted many controlled listening tests to clearly identify these things. Everything he would tell you is based in science, a lot of it his own research. I have had these conversations with him.
|
“Again, what’s with the insinuation?”
There was no insinuation. It was pretty direct. If you feel insulted by assertions of fact that is your problem.
“Is it because you didn’t understand what I wrote?”
I understood what you wrote.
“The use of "obviously delusional claims" was a paraphrasing of your outlandish examples of what you say members claim and you’re conflating that with what they say they’re hearing. The two are not anywhere near the same.”
complete nonsense. I have never claimed or inferred that anyone here is delusional. So you weren’t “paraphrasing” anything I actually said. And when you accuse someone of making delusional claims it follows that the person making the claim is delusional.
“It was not calling you delusional. One (yours) is made up and the other (members hearing acuity) is based in reality.”
Im stating facts about human hearing. We can go back and forth all day on this. If you want to put it to an actual test I’m all for it.
“You’re not as clever as you think you are. That line from the Princess Bride comes to mind....whatever.”
it is once again ironic that you would try to make this about me on a thread lamenting civility. I’d be more than happy to put this “difference of opinion” to an actual test and we can record it and post it. Let’s make it about audio and let’s do more than just talk.
|
I can’t make heads or tails of most of what you write. I have yet to make it all the way through any of your posts. Last thing I am going to do is try to go through every word, decipher them and respond point by point. I don’t need your analysis of what Edgar says about audio. I just talk to him directly.
|
“The fact that you spoke directly to Einstein does not means that Einstein had solved or you had solved all problem in physics...😊”
and that’s where I tuned out….
|
“So if you hear a difference with your basic cables compared to others out there, you won’t believe your own ears until you find a way to measure it?”
If I can reliably identify a difference under controlled listening I would believe I heard a difference. By the way, I did not say all cables sound the same. Some are actually colored.
If you could not reliably identify a difference between your cables and basic cables under controlled listening tests would you believe your ears?
Better yet, since for all I know your cables may actually be audibly colored. If I took an original hi res file and the same file that has been run through a basic cable a pro DAC using a stock Uber thin power cord, another basic cable, a pro ADC with a basic power cord, run that to a basic CPU/ server powered by a stock power cord through yet another basic cable and repeated that cycle ten times. So in the end the recording has been run through 30 basic cables, 10 basic CPUs/servers, 10 pro DACs, 10 pro ADCs powered by 30 stock power cords all run through basic power strips. If you could not reliably tell the difference between that 10th generation hi res file that has been through all those allegedly highly colored stages and the original file would you believe your ears?
”It must suck to be you.”
Hate to disappoint you but life is good. But more to the point, I am enjoying audio far far more now than I ever did when I bought into all the BS and was wasting enormous amounts of money on “state of the art high end” cables and power conditioners that only provided a buyers euphoria and no real improvement in sound. Once I got off that merry go round and started focusing on things that matter, using basic understanding of measured performance and correlations between that and personal preferences, and pursuing cutting edge technology both the quality of sound and the enjoyment of my system went up by leaps and bounds.
|
“im done. I tried to get away from him but he has an apple AirTag on my posts. I’m done. I wonder what he has in his system or if he even has a system.”
honestly, I don’t even know what an Apple AirTag is. As for my system… I am in China working until the end of February. When I get back I am diving into a major rebuild of my dedicated stereo room. After that I am looking at possibly doing one major upgrade with the Trinnov Waveforming technology. It should all be done sometime in late April. I expect the results to be state of the art.
I live in Las Vegas. If you find yourself in our little town you would be welcome to come hear for yourself whether or not it is state of the art.
|
“You are completely wrong here...
The two side subjectivist and objectivist are not divided between scientists on one side and superstitious dudes on the other side ...😁”
that’s sort of what I said. The terms subjectivist and objectivist are misapplied. I am a subjectivist.
|
A subjectivist judges sound quality based on their personal preferences. The same way someone would judge food or art. If one finds the sound to their liking and then declares that to be good that is subjectivism.
An objectivist judges sound quality on accuracy to some reference. Maybe the recording or maybe live sound.
So we had people like Harry Pearson who cared nothing about measurements or science but was an objectivist because he felt there was an objective reference, “the absolute sound” the sound of live acoustic music, against which the accuracy of audio playback could be judged.
Then you have people like Floyd Toole and Sean Olive who strictly evaluated sound quality in their research using proper time synchronized quick switching double blind tests but are subjectivists. All of their studies were based on listener preferences. All scoring of their tests were done with subjective ratings.
And yet many would label Harry Pearson as the poster child for subjectivism in audio and would consider Toole and Olive to be poster children for objectivism in audio.
|
“A subjectivist use ONLY his ears to decide that a system is good or bad... “
listening with ONLY your ears means doing it blind. Some subjectivists do that and some don’t.
|
“@scottwheel Do you have any friends? You are not making any here and @calvinj said you really are obsessed with his posts. If you do not know what an Apple Airtag is then you are living in a cave in China.
Best thing to do with a sociopath like this is ignore them. Oh I know it will have this post deleted but he she it they them is a pathetic little person and I feel good unloading on this fraud. @calvinj we may not always agree, but I agree with your consensus on this sea creature. Keep posting I enjoy reading the responses, at least 99.9%of them. Here is to hoping this Sea Lion is eaten by a Great White in the South China Sea.”
I can’t help but wonder if the irony of your post copied and pasted above on a thread lamenting the lack of civility is lost on you. Thanks for the laugh.
|
Then you have people like Floyd Toole and Sean Olive who strictly evaluated sound quality in their research using proper time synchronized quick switching double blind tests but are subjectivists. All of their studies were based on listener preferences. All scoring of their tests were done with subjective ratings.
“No, they didn’t.”
Yes they did.
“You keep repeating it as if were fact or it will be since you use it like a chant or a mantra.”
It is a fact.
”If you’d look up that conversation Darko had with Paul Barton (who was part of the team of Toole, Olive and others) you’d stop saying that. But you won’t so here’s a link to that conversation.”
Why on earth would I look up an interview on YouTube with a guy who is NOT Sean Olive or Floyd Toole when I can go straight to the source? Floyd Toole published a book about Hifi in which he talks extensively about double blind testing and his use of it in his research. Sean Olive has a blog in which he does the same and they have both published peer reviewed papers with the AESJ including one specifically about double blind testing. Do you really think that some YouTuber interviewing someone who is NOT Toole or Olive is going to give you better information on their testing methodologies than their own published books, research papers and personal blog?
“They used the exact same speaker positions so all the room reflections would be the same so there had to be a pause to swap out speakers. No synchronized quick switching.”
Do a quick search on the Harman speaker shuffler then get back to me on quick switching in their research.
|
“I am wondering, using your own testing criteria / and methodology, just how we would draw a valid conclusion about your Las Vegas system being SOTA ?”
I thought you guys don’t trust my “testing criteria” Don’t you guys trust your own ears? My invite did not come with any conditions about how anyone has to pass judgement. If Calvin or you or anyone else finds themselves in Las Vegas and wants to hear for themselves and judge by whatever criteria they want they are welcome to do so.
On a side note, I’m not sure you have a very accurate and complete accounting of my criteria for judging audio.
|
“ Toole's listening test were flawed, he positioned every different kind of speaker in the same location. ”
I agree his tests were flawed. I didn’t say they were perfect. I said they were double blind.
|
“That, and it’s not a YouTube video but a SoundCloud recording. What’s the matter, can’t you listen that long? Do you need pictures/video to keep your interest? Would what he said throw buckets of cold water on your position?
The Harmon Speaker Shuffler is located in Northridge, Ca., which looks to have been developed in the early 2000s. In 1966, Toole conducted his very first tests on speakers and listening and Barton joined him around 1974, in Canada.
What are you so afraid of?”
Having to sit through an interview and then try to explain to how you misunderstood it. Have you read Toole’s book? Have you read Olive’s blog? Have you read any of their published research papers?
|
An excerpt from one of Sean Olive’s blog posts.
“An ongoing controversy within the high-end audio community is the efficacy of blind versus sighted audio product listening tests. In a blind listening test, the listener has no specific knowledge of what products are being tested, thereby removing the psychological influence that the product’s brand, design, price and reputation have on the listeners’ impression of its sound quality. While double-blind protocols are standard practice in all fields of science - including consumer testing of food and wine - the audio industry remains stuck in the dark ages in this regard. The vast majority of audio equipment manufacturers and reviewers continue to rely on sighted listening to make important decisions about the products’ sound quality.
An important question is whether sighted audio product evaluations produce honest and reliable judgments of how the product truly sounds.
A Blind Versus Sighted Loudspeaker Experiment
This question was tested in 1994, shortly after I joined Harman International as Manager of Subjective Evaluation [1]. My mission was to introduce formalized, double-blind product testing at Harman. To my surprise, this mandate met rather strong opposition from some of the more entrenched marketing, sales and engineering staff who felt that, as trained audio professionals, they were immune from the influence of sighted biases. Unfortunately, at that time there were no published scientific studies in the audio literature to either support or refute their claims, so a listening experiment was designed to directly test this hypothesis. The details of this test are described in references 1 and 2.
A total of 40 Harman employees participated in these tests, giving preference ratings to four loudspeakers that covered a wide range of size and price. The test was conducted under both sighted and blind conditions using four different music selections.”
So please do tell me again what part of my assertion that they do double blind listening tests for subjective evaluations.
you did get the date right when it comes to the Harman shuffler. Somehow you didn’t address your clams that their tests were quick switching.
|
“Paul Barton is of that source. Toole has worked with him from those early days and by now, should be back where the started which is where Barton lives “
So the testimonial of some guy who worked with Toole is a better source on how Toole did his research than Toole and the actual published papers of Toole’s research? I disagree.
|
“Slippery and very unscientific…. a peer would answer the question….but i will help you…..
How are you going to decide your effort = SOTA ?”
The invite was for you or Calvin or anyone else to come over and listen for yourselves and decide for yourselves using whatever criteria any of you want to use. How is that “slippery?”
All this ranting about how I try to dictate how other people listen. I offer the most open ended unconditional audition of my personal system in my home and that is some how “slippery?”
|
“Every time I point you to that recording, you come back with evasion, side stepping something so simple as listening to another perspective that would help to educate yourself.”
Have you read Toole’s book or any of Olive’s blog posts or any of the actual peer reviewed ARSJ papers of their research that documents their actual testing?
I have. Do you think that this interview will demonstrate that Toole’s and Olive’s own accounts and published papers misrepresented their use of double blind tests? Simple question. If you do think that this interview will somehow prove that both Olive and Toole misrepresented their use of double blind protocols in their research I will give it a listen. If you don’t think demonstrates that they misrepresented their work I see no reason to read second hand accounts of their work after having read their first hand accounts and their actual research papers.
|
“Just answer the direct ? how will YOU decide ?”
What difference does it make to you how *I* determine state of the art? If you really want me to give you a step by step description of how I plan to judge the quality of my system then please give me a good reason to do so. I just don’t think you are genuinely interested.
“…… i get you are hiding behind the invitation….”
I’m hiding behind an open invitation to you or Calvin or anyone else to come to my home and listen to my system and judge it for yourselves using whatever criteria any of you see fit? Ok….
“But first… invite yourself “
yeah, I don’t really need an invitation to listen to and evaluate my own system. I live with it. Given your disdain for my beliefs and methods of evaluation it seems odd you are now so fixated on it.
Again it’s an open invitation to listen to my system and evaluate it any way *you* see fit. What are *you* hiding from?
I would take up any such invitation at my earliest convenience. I’m not holding my breath.
|
“The only issue you're dancing around with is this notion that all this double blind listening is done with "quick switching"
I never said all blind listening *is* done with quick switching. I said it should be. The Harman shuffler switches speakers in about 2 seconds. It’s not instantaneous which would be ideal but it is quick. They spent north of a million dollars to build this just for the sake of quick switching.
|
“Some are not interested in hearing the music or a difference.”
Apparently you are not interested in hearing my system. Which is perfectly fine.
”Some just want to be right.”
I just want to get the subjectively best sound I can get from my system.
”WE ARE NOT THE SAME.”
So it seems. I absolutely would accept any open invitation to hear any system that someone is claiming to be pushing the state of the art. That’s what interests me the most these days in audio.
No worries. I tried to extend an olive branch. Such is life.
|
“I am sincere in my ask about how he intends to evaluate SOTA against his expectation. Especially given his stated methods and the multi variable changes. I am not questioning his assertion of a SOTA expectation. Frankly, i’ve heard quite modest systems surf the edges of SOTA on some key attributes of sound reproduction - including the sometimes elusive emotional engagement factor.”
Fair enough. It’s 3:37 AM here. I was up at 2:00 for a zoom meeting on L.A. time. I start work at 6:00 AM here so I’m going to try to catch a few Zzzzzs in between. My process of evaluation is very new and involved. I will outline it when I have some time and some sleep. If nothing else it will be different.
|
As for my methods of evaluation. Essentially it’s a combination of measuring and listening. Listening comparisons are done blind when possible. The BACCH SP has a few features that work as amazing evaluation tools. Along with unique in ear measurements of frequency response, impulse response and cross talk cancelation, there is a feature that allows you to create a transfer filter that will simulate your system from in ear measurements. This allows for quick switching comparisons between system changes that can not be switched with any meaningful speed. It also allows for real time comparison nd between in room recordings, again from time n your ears directly with play back of that recording. The room changes will be evaluated using the BACCH system simulation. Any and all DSP will be evaluated with simple quick switching in and out of the signal path. All of which will be compared and contrasted to measurements taken through the BACCH and also using REW.
|
