Really perfect reproduction? You would think that with all these great measurements and great measuring equipment that at least some recordings would sound closer to a live unamplified performance but they don't, that's why tubes still exist, to make it sound more like real music.
I don't want to beat a dead horse but I'm bugged.
I just can't clear my head of this. I don't want to start a measurements vs listening war and I'd appreciate it if you guys don't, but I bought a Rogue Sphinx V3 as some of you may remember and have been enjoying it quite a bit. So, I head over to AVS and read Amir's review and he just rips it apart. But that's OK, measurements are measurements, that is not what bugs me. I learned in the early 70s that distortion numbers, etc, may not be that important to me. Then I read that he didn't even bother listening to the darn thing. That is what really bugs me. If something measures so poorly, wouldn't you want to correlate the measurements with what you hear? Do people still buy gear on measurements alone? I learned that can be a big mistake. I just don't get it, never have. Can anybody provide some insight to why some people are stuck on audio measurements? Help me package that so I can at least understand what they are thinking without dismissing them completely as a bunch of mislead sheep.
368 responses Add your response
Atmasphere has numerous posts about amplifier harmonic distortion and listener perception. Simply stated, vanishingly low harmonic distortion is not necessary. The harmonic spectrum and linearity of the distortion are more important. So whether THD is .001% or a hundred times greater is pretty irrelevant. Clearly measurements matter, it's just that the most commonly cited amplifier measurements aren't the most important regarding sound quality. IMO a well designed amplifier should both measure well and sound good. |
Amir is a good resource as an alternative viewpoint. His ‘truth’ is a series of measurements, that can tell a lot about how some components will perform. But he does miss some of the picture no doubt. A couple of his component reviews are way off the mark. Maybe a faulty product? Or his measuring system at fault? Who knows? Take Audio Science Review for entertainment value, and some worthwhile information. |
i remember replying to a similar thread a while back asking this question... my answer was 3 fold 1. some folks do not trust their ears to tell them which is 'better' 2. some folks with scientific training believe (mistakenly in my view) that measurements tell all that one needs to know 3. some combo of 1 and 2 |
We also used to think the sun was the center of the universe. Why is it so hard to accept people like different things and even what they like changes? If you have become accustomed to a certain sound, that is what you may prefer even if it does not measure well. Someone else may have become accustomed to and like a different sound that measures well.
|
Why would he bother with listening to this amplifier?
Not particularly, this amp was given a not recommended not so much because it could be differentiated from other amps if kept within it's limitations but because it wasn't considered a good buy and the engineering of the thing is a bit weird.
Yes, I do. They can tell me enough to know what I want to consider. I've yet to listen to a component that measured well and sounded bad, but I only consider this with speakers as amps, Dacs, etc.. are commodities I can look at the numbers and know if I want it and they don't have to be that great since the speaker and room will swamp the electronics in terms of audible distortion.
I don't understand the gripe with ASR, if you don't like their approach then don't pay attention to it. From my reading on their site they pretty much ignore this place try to do the same. |
@russ69 I didn't say the measurements have to be great, they can just be good. Good is more than acceptable. |
The problem was not Amir himself but few of his zealots disciples... Because the notion of a measured distortion in engineering design is not the same than in acoustic... Why ? Because acoustician test a subjective response from a musician for example in a timbre experiment perception test...harmonics here means something very different than " harmonics" in engineering standard measures... And the engineer read a dial and his "distortion" THD is a way more simplistic concept of what a distortion do to the subjective impressions and why....It is an engineering % about a relation between input and ouput...Not the way sound affect humans ears... Electronic Engineering is SUBORDINATED to psycho-acoustic research or a tool for it not the reverse ... Save when the psycho-acoustic research is done and applied.... Timbre perception is not reducible to a simplistic concept of the spectrum for example....but the engineer most of the times work with this simplistic concept which is well enough for his design trade-off practice anway ... There is exception but they are exceptional designer not a crowd of them ...All audio products are not ultra high end... 😁😊
Exactly....Some designer like atmasphere know....
|
It needs to be more than just low distortion at 20KHz although that certainly does not hurt. What is important is four things; if these four things are met, the amp will be easy to listen to, regardless of its technology: 1) the distortion will be consistent at all frequencies- the same at 100Hz, 1KHz and 10KHz. 2) the distortion spectra at 1 Watt will be such that the higher ordered harmonics will not be audible- for whatever reason. 3) The distortion spectra at 6dB below full power will also prevent higher ordered harmonics being audible. 4) IMD is well controlled. These things sound simple and easy but they can be quite tricky! Most amps fail them outright- and sound bright and harsh as a result, even though they 'measure well' otherwise. The real problem isn't that they measure well, its that the proper measurements aren't made at all! |
Many amplifiers on tested on Stereophile and ASR meet those criteria @atmasphere . By low, I don't mean only low at 20KHz, but low at all frequencies, <<0.01% at all frequencies. I don't think distortion has any particular meaning at >10KHz as the distortion is >20KHz. I assume the measurements are using an extended bandwidth beyond human hearing. ASR shows distortion from low to high power at a range of frequencies in their reviews. |
The absolute truth in my opinion. Current test bench measurements are inadequate. It makes no sense to measure good and yet sound poorly. What good are measurements such as these? There are numerous audio components that don’t measure particularly well yet sound fabulous. Ralph is correct in that what really matters in determining good sound quality is not being done currently with measuring instruments. I do believe at some future point this dilemma will be properly solved. It sure is not the case now. I guess for some there’s a degree of reassurance or peace of mind with current methods of audio component bench testing. As it stands presently the ears are far more reliable and trustworthy in judging audio product sound quality. Charles |
The problem if i may give my grain of salt, is that we dont exactly know what are human hearing abilities... Human hearing limit in decibel scale and in the frequency scale yes we know but what about the way the brain/ears used the information and decipher it with the non linear tool kit of the cochlea/brain ?
In the words of these mathematical physicists turned acoustician: Jacob N. Oppenheim and Marcelo Magnasco of the Laboratory of Mathematical Physics at Rockefeller University have conducted experiments indicating that the human brain does not use the Fourier transform when resolving a cacophony of noise into individual sounds and voices. While the Gabor limit associated with the Fourier transform stipulates that you can't simultaneously determine a sound's frequency and duration, the 12 musicians subjected to Oppenheim and Magnasco's battery of tests beat the limit by as much as a factor of 13. The Fourier transform cannot, therefore, fully explain the machinations of the human brain. "The actual algorithm employed by our brains is still shrouded in mystery," says Magnasco.
«You see, physicists tend to think hearing is spectrum. But spectrum is time-independent, and hearing is about rapid transients. We were just told, by the data, that our brains care a great deal about timing.» «For the first time, physicists have found that humans can discriminate a sound’s frequency (related to a note’s pitch) and timing (whether a note comes before or after another note) more than 10 times better than the limit imposed by the Fourier uncertainty principle.» « The results have implications for how we understand the way that the brain processes sound, a question that has interested scientists for a long time. In the early 1970s, scientists found hints that human hearing could violate the uncertainty principle, but the scientific understanding and technical capabilities were not advanced enough to enable a thorough investigation. As a result, most of today’s sound analysis models are based on old theories that may now be revisited in order to capture the precision of human hearing.» This article is particularly illuminating if someone take the time to read it and his imnplication to understand hearing and why our measurements are not the good one...
|
This statement is misleading IMO. Most fail requirement 1) of my prior post. If you look at the distortion amount and its spectra, you’ll find that most amps have distortion rising with frequency and the spectra changing along with it. This is because (as I’ve mentioned before) that they lack sufficient feedback, because they also lack sufficient Gain Bandwidth Product. There are exactly two ways around the problem of rising distortion and changing spectra: 1) build the circuit with zero feedback and wide bandwidth or 2) build the circuit with really enough Gain Bandwidth Product to support over 30dB of feedback (such that feedback is actually the same at 15KHz as it is at 100Hz). Most amps spec’ed to have ’30dB of feedback’ might have that at 1KHz but they will be less than that at 10KHz since the feedback is falling off due to insufficient GBP. This causes distortion to rise with frequency and it also means that the distortion caused by the application of feedback can’t be corrected by the circuit. That translates to ’harsh and bright’ and we’ve all heard amps with this problem; we’ve been hearing them for the last 60-70 years! There are plenty of amps made like that today and only a very few that actually meet the requirements stated in 2) of this post above if they have feedback.
Its not that we as an industry can’t do it, its that we lack the will, plain and simple. You do also need to know enough to understand how something will sound by looking at the distortion spectra... I’ve no doubt that some of these measurements don’t occur because there isn’t the education out there to really understand the data! Plus- heaven forbid- you know how something sounds by looking at the measurements!
|
This article is about this discovery i spoke about above about Oppenheim and Magnasco and our model of hearing and dac design ... i think that this clarify andjustify atmasphere opinion but from another perspective which is not amplifier design, but more hearing abilities in itself, but i am not a specialist... 😊
|
Perhaps some day they'll innovate a robot that replicates my sensory perceptions and attaches a measurement regime conforming to those preferences. The robot can make the rounds. listening and measuring every component existent in the world and report back. I could then objectively put together components best conforming to that measurement regime and build the best possible system for my listening preferences. |
If we reach a point where sound quality can be accurately predicted by measurement I’d have zero resistance or issue with it. My point is acknowledging we are not remotely close to doing that now. Currently used measuring techniques seemingly can’t hold a candle compared to the extraordinary capabilities of the human ear-brain axis processing pathways (Thank you @mahgister ). You can use cheap off the shelf Op-amps to allow any mass produced entry level DAC to measure quite well and yet sound utterly underwhelming (Like crap). Charles |
Would the issue be that you don't want accuracy? You want artifacts? I think that is the conclusion that can be drawn. I don't think Mahgister is remotely accurate in this regard, not regarding electrical signals. Those we can measure with extreme confidence fortunately, or my job would be impossible. If you do not want accurate, I doubt there is 100% correlation from human to human, so the only way to know what artifacts you like is for you to listen. I can run pure 2-channel, or through the AV processor. Depending on my mood, I will listen using the AV processor and ambience surround settings. It is not accurate, but often is a more pleasant listening experience. It is more alive, with all those buzz words that audiophiles like; wide sound-stage, presence and sounds more like a live performance. It is obviously artificial though.
|
FIRST: What is accuracy? What is an acoustical artefacts ? There is accuracy in the engineering sense of : input----->output measured linearly correlated electrical signals factors and noise ratio... There is accuracy in acoustic and psycho-acoustic sense of the world, where timbre perception for example cannot be reduced to linearly analysed spectrum...The cochlea/brain analysis tool are highly non linear...
You confuse the two meaning of the word accurate the physical one and the acoustic one .... Then it is easy to accuse audiophiles to be deluded after this confusion ...You are not right or wrong here...You dont even see the problem if i read yourt posts... Read the two articles i posted above...And debunk them... 😁😊
SECOND: you said. «with all those buzz words that audiophiles like; wide sound-stage, presence and sounds more like a live performance. It is obviously artificial though.» Here you really are wrong, calling acoustical cues and factors that are ALL OF THEM under objective controls in any audio laboratory studying acoustic perception, calling them "articicial" like in deceiving illusion compared to accurate electrical signals...Acoustic factors are OBJECTIVE, even if they are subjectively interpreted, like electrical signals are and are subject to controls method like electrical signals are... Read the two articles above if you want a clue about why you are completely wrong by calling acoustic factors like LEV/ASW ratio for example, artificial in the sense of illusory, and suggesting that they are fancy illusions in the head of "deluded audiophile".... Sorry but acoustic is a science like electrical engineering not a fancy... In my room by the way i learned to control these "illusions" at will with mechanical Helmholtz method among other things...
In the two articles above which i can resume by this sentence is the explanation why the ears/brain cannot be studied by linear Fourier method ONLY : «The Fourier transform cannot, therefore, fully explain the machinations of the human brain. "The actual algorithm employed by our brains is still shrouded in mystery," says Magnasco.»
|
Nobody sounds like Ella Fitzgerald if it could be measured and reproduced then everyone could sound like her. An A note sung by Ella compared to the same note sung by anyone else can be measured but don’t sound the same. Or you can use a tone generator to produce that same A note so if you could measure everything you could make that tone generated sound like Ella so if that’s artifacts I’m for it! I want the equipment that produces the most believable Ella in my living room and will use any method to get there but ultimately it's whether she sounds real or less real. |
Well, you're free to draw whatever conclusion that you would like. My pursuit and objective in home audio has not changed in 30 years. I want to obtain the most natural and realistic music reproduction that I can hope to reasonably achieve. Actually listening to audio products and judging what I hear is the most effective and dependable process to achieve this goal. Measurements tell me next to nothing in regard to how these audio components will sound, so I must hear them. I totally understand if others judge and select differently with buying audio components. Do what suits you the best. Charles |
@realworldaudio , I feel most of what you wrote is made up. I don't think you will be able to clearly articulate what is missing from the measurements and certainly not 95% of the things that are missing. Perhaps this is the issue. This sounds more like outrage mob mentality that reasonsed criticism. I am welcome to be proven wrong. I came up with the 95% missing using historic precedents for scientific discoveries. (Throughout history the narrow minds all firmly believed that everything that could be invented was already invented, and now even a 6 year old kid knows it better.) The practices for audio gear measurements are relatively new (just a few decades old). In even 50 years, our practices will be proven as massively inaccurate, and in general quite useless as it probably covers about 5% of what our children's children will count as measurements that point towards sound quality perception. Although that will be in the future, yet it does not detract from the reality that our current practices are in their infancy. To think we know everything, and we have discovered all the secrets to sound and audio gear is the only sure bet to loose. Doing a google search will do no good now, but will help in 50 years. Also, if google search would answer deep questions on audio measurements, we would not have this discussion, and everyone would be at perfect agreement. (BTW the 95% is just a symbolic value, please do not start a thread on whether it is 92% or 96.786734% exactly, or it's truly 57.4%... only time will tell, and although our view will change decade from decade, but the reality will be still the same: today we have a very limited concept of how to measure audio parameters to reflect on sound quality.) So, a few examples on issues with current standard measurement practices that I know of, I will take only amplifiers for now: *all parameters tested on non-inductive perfectly passive extremely simplistic loads, while the loudspeakers are highly complex live loads affected by the room. *Only additive distortion is measured, subtractive distortion is not. *Change of THD in function of output level and frequency are no paid attention to, while these are strong determiners in relation whether the sound is perceived as natural VS manufactured. *Amplifier behavior is tested with constantly repetitive primitive signals, while the music output is a highly variable extremely complex waveform. *It is not examined how an amplifier deals with small signals following a large pulse at the frequency extremes.
I mentioned the names of known and proven audio authorities in my initial post, because they have the answers you want from me, but I have no credibility in your eyes, so it's a waste from me to yap around. Do not believe me, as you do not know who I am, and that's fine. I just humbly point out to you (again), to listen to interviews with the fathers of audio measurements and high end industry and hear what they have to say. Thank you for the chat. I hope I have answered your concerns. What I wrote might be completely irrelevant to your quest, and it's quite likely that you have specific experiences that point you in the direction you want to go, where you will find fulfillment and purpose. However, ignoring the experts on audio measurements will quite likely lead to a more protracted learning curve than what you are looking for. I wish you success and luck! |
Great post! I will only add that we cannot know how to measure and how to interpret these measures correctly if we dont have a correct model of human hearing at the end...... That was the subject of my last 3 posts here.... With some interesting scientific articles about hearing ....
|
@realworldaudio , I am not an EE, but my I have an advanced physics degree, and have worked in semiconductors, batteries, and development and measurement of those a long time. I have gotten pretty good with metrology out of necessity. Hence I don’t claim to be an expert, but I think I have a good grasp of what is being communicated in the measurements:
Stereophile specifically mentions they use for some of their tests a synthetic speaker load that models a real world speaker. This appears to negate some of the above statement. Testing into 4 ohm is standard. Testing in 2 ohms seems common. This will provide insight into more reactive loads. Testing with worse case synthetic loads is common and harsher than real world conditions. For characterizing semiconductor devices we test with synthetic loads to find the "corners" for stability.
I am not sure exactly what you mean by subtractive distortion. Are you stating that the interaction of a particular amplifier with a particular speaker may result in lower overall distortion? This seems possible. I will note that @atmasphere who seems to know his stuff stated most (not all) speakers are designed to be driven with a voltage source which may negate the advantage you may perceive for most listeners. This would be dependent exclusively on the load (speaker) so I don’t see how this could be tested.
This is purely false. Read any of the more recent reviews on ASR. THD and SINAD is tested from very low power to very high power across a range of frequencies from I think 20Hz to 15KHz. I am too lazy to go verify the exact frequencies used.
This is also purely false. ASR tests with a 32 tone IM signal. This is 32 tones from low frequency to high frequency. That would result in a signal that is complex and varying in amplitude as the frequencies add together.
I will not call this false, but I think you are not interpreting what the other measurements will accomplish. The 32 tone IM signal will vary from large to small. The THD stimulation also transitions from a very small level to very large. If the measurement is -100db in both cases then that would also be the case for the special condition you are theorizing. What may be missing is testing if the distortion rises under continued heavy load causing device heating. I do not know if that is a valid real world condition. I have listened to Nelson Pass. He strikes me as very much a heavy measurements guy. He may tune intentional artifacts in his designs, but what I have read and what I have been on Youtube indicates he is very much measurement oriented.
|
@realworldaudio Thank you for stating what should be obvious. Of course some believe we've already discovered all there is to be discovered. Why not just shut down any research into audio reproduction and human sensory perception, we already have all the measurement protocols and tools needed to prove absolutes, and differences in individual human sensory perceptivity is of no concern.
Watch out for the audio authoritarians, they'll be sure no Toto can open the curtain.
|
Are you any better @sns , insisting on magic because you won't accept your own infallible and easily influenced hearing? I replied to @realworldaudio's post, objectively, with no idea or care for his qualifications. Some of the things he said are wrong. Some of the things he says seem relevant, and some are likely outside the scope or even capability of any viable test regimen but does not make them irrelevant, just impractical. |
Who would consider this a good frequency response? It’s the Harman curve. Research showed this to be the frequency response for headphones the majority of people like best. It’s curves like this (there are several variants) that headphone designs nowadays target. Maybe we should do something similar for Amps plus speakers. Tone control is mostly stripped off of hight end amps, let alone the good old 'loudness' switch. A multiband equalizer is a very nice piece of equipment ... strangely enough seldom used in high end hifi. I wonder why?
|
I've listened to a lot of amps on a lot of different systems, and I would say that specs are probably less correlated with sound in the case of an amp than they are with virtually any other component on the system. If someone put a gun to my head and said I had to pick a spec for an amp and make a purchase on that spec alone, I'd want to know its weight. That doesn't tell you a lot about it sound, but it tells you more than just about anything else you could name. I just bought an amp here on Audiogon, and I couldn't tell you its power rating without googling it. |
This is not magic nor am I trying to insist my reference for sound quality is an objective reference. I am very mindful of my own unique sensory perception, biases, preferences, and I allow others those same considerations. I simply don't understand why some have need to assign some reference sound quality based on present rather primitive measurement regime. Again, this is symptom of inherent authoritarian mindset. |
I posted all reference to experiments that proved that Fourier transform cannot explain the hearing process which is non linear... Many dac technology are based on this flawed assumptions ... But deludedaudiophile never answered...
|
When I look at the measurement regimen for electrical products, for audio, it is not something I would call primitive. THD and SINAD tests from mW to 100's of watts at multiple frequencies in the audible range. IMD tests with 32 tones across multiple frequencies from low to high. Instruments that have noise and distortion 120db below signal levels. What is primitive about this? In my response to @realworldaudio , his impression, and possibly yours is based on perhaps not understanding the measurements. What is missing is how a particular speaker responds to a particular amplifier, but that is a system issue, and would appear to to be more relevant to certain amplifiers such as tube amplifiers, with high output resistance. I personally am quite impressed with the technology of the Klippel speaker measurement system. There is nothing primitive about that. I see tests also include distortion at several volume levels, and impulse responses. I expect someone skilled can understand a lot about how that speaker will sound and how it would interact with a room and how it would respond to being turned up. I think what irks some audiophiles is that sites like ASR declare that some equipment will sound the same, or that some equipment, will make no audible difference. I see that statement made with amplifiers, but it always has qualifications. I my mind there has not been anything convincing that proves them wrong.
|
Noise addition in some case can help, not impede the audio experience why? Then measuring noise/signals ratio to the n’th order is not enough if we dont understand human hearing ..... Answer: because ears/brain being non linear they USED some noise to ENHANCE the perception instead of impeding the perception... Hearing dont obey Helmholtz old paradigm nor Fourier transform tech... |
I did not not answer. I simply did not read your post. Your posts for me, are excessive in number, take too long to make a point, and are filled with information that is extraneous.
As our discussion is about audio equipment, not the human ear, it is relevant to keep the discussion at this point to equipment.
This statement is not correct. There in an inherent lack of understanding in that statement that I don't even know where to start unpacking. However, I will say two things. The goal of signal recreation is linearity. Testing for non-linearity is the purpose of THD measurement. It is an inherent feature of performing Fourier analysis. Our hearing having non-linear processing elements has nothing to do with analog to digital and digital to analog conversion and Shannon-Nyquist theorems. The two are totally unrelated. Are you trying to imply that there are some timing limitations in DACs that are not sufficient for audio reproduction? In the articles it talks about 10x the Fourier uncertainty limit. That will still be a very very large number compared to the timing precision that digital audio must have to support the THD numbers I see quoted. I am sure you can research this and prove that to yourself. |
You miss my point....I dont contest the value of this Shannon theorem... 😁😊 The goal in circuit design is linearity for sure... It is electronical design goal...Noise has a meaning here which is not the same than for the hearing process itself... You dont seems conscious that all electrical measures has an interpretative meaning ONLY in a theoretical framework refering to our actual understanding about hearing...
Some use the concept "accurate" and "noise" in a confused way...They conflated the two possible meanings of the word "accurate" for a non linear detection system like the ears or for a linear tool detection system and they confused the two ways the ratio signals/noise can work for a linear detection system and for a non linear detection system... The method by which scientist can study the way introduction of noise can help non linear detection system is called: stochastic resonance method... The way the cochlea is non linearly structured make it able to use an Hopf bifurcation tool analysis inherent in the small fibers cells of the internal ears... The ears are not a PASSIVE detector system but an ACTIVE non linear one able to amplify ...Then his ability to resolve information exceed many hundredth of times any passive system... It is the reason why electrical partial set of measures ALONE cannot determine out of listening experiments what will be the sound quality of gear...Like some few deluded ASR disciples falsely claim... The two groups are deluded not only audiophiles... Sorry....But one at least know that learning how to listen and hearing are FUNDAMENTAL.... |
deludedaudiophile "You can't compare the frequency response of a headphone to speakers."You most certainly can and in fact should make such comparisons and they are valid, meaningful, and useful in determining and establishing the relative accuracy of not only each other but the recording itself which is why you will find in many recording studios and other recording environments that both speakers and headphones are used for judgment and evaluation of the work underway.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with these common practices so as to avoid your misinformation. |
"The ears are not a PASSIVE detector system but an ACTIVE non linear one able to amplify"
So far so good, just like the human eye is not a passive organ of perception. It is understood that the brain contributes as much to the interpretation of the images detected as the eye itself. There is no reason to not assume that the ear/brain operates in a similar fashion.
"...Then his ability to resolve information exceed many hundredth of times any passive system..."
Now this is contentious. For example, does this include the Klippel software and measuring systems as used by some of the most advanced audio labs today?
If not, then the following assumption cannot possibly hold any water, can it?
"It is the reason why electrical partial set of measures ALONE cannot determine out of listening experiments what will be the sound quality of gear...Like some few deluded ASR disciples falsely claim..."
I’m all in favour of upholding the sovereignty of the human mind and perceptual system, but isn’t this just wishful thinking as we enter the age of AI? |
«The technical specifications of the human ear are remarkable. We can hear sounds that evoke mechanical vibrations of magnitudes comparable to those produced by thermal noise (de Vries 1948; Sivian and White 1933). Hearing is so sharply tuned to specific frequencies that trained musicians can distinguish tones differing in frequency by only 0.1% (Spiegel and Watson 1984). Finally, our ears can process sounds over a range of amplitudes encompassing six orders of magnitude, which corresponds to a trillionfold range in stimulus power (Knudsen 1923). These striking characteristics of our hearing emerge because the ear is not a passive sensory receptor, but possesses an active process that augments audition in three ways (reviewed in Hudspeth 2008; Manley 2000, 2001). First, amplification renders hearing several hundred times as sensitive as would be expected for a passive system. The active process next exhibits tuning that sharpens our frequency discrimination. Finally, a compressive nonlinearity ensures that inputs spanning an enormous range of sound-pressure levels are systematically encoded by a modest range of mechanical vibrations and in turn of receptor potentials and nerve-fiber firing rates. The active process additionally exhibits the striking epiphenomenon of spontaneous otoacoustic emission, the production of sound by an ear in the absence of external stimulation. Although considerable attention has been devoted to these properties in mammalian and especially human hearing, the four defining features of the active process are equally characteristic of nonmammalian tetrapods (reviewed in Manley 2001).» |
Artificial Intelligence is NOT intelligence...This is another matter out of this subject thread for sure... Because "meanings" in human experience emerge through the deeply rooted biological body in all evolutive history beginning with the first cell...And this rooting is INTEGRATED at all scales and worked all the times not as a passed over abandonned tools but like an actual tools, our body host trillions of cells...... Life never let anything die without reason..Life explore and play but is not blind sorry...Randomness is not understood in biology...It is understood only in mathematics anyway...( the most important fact in mathematics is nor order or randomness but some kind of "music", this is demonstrated by non commutative geometry works of the fields medallist Alain Connes) And in some very important theoretical approach in neuro research we must distinguish INTELLIGENCE and CONSCIOUSNESS completely... They are no more synonymus... Consciousness is biologically and symbolically rooted , intelligence is only symbolically rooted, one is more fundamental...Consciousness encompass intelligence, not the opposite... There exist in the universe an "artificial intelligence" completely closed on themselves with no root in this universe at all... But i cannot enter this here... Read Giulio Tononi... among others...or Penrose-Hameroff works etc...About the difference between consciousness and intelligence... An intelligence rooted in an embodied consciousness work non algorithmically and work CONJUGATED AND IN CORRELATION with all others embodied intelligence through a hierarchical set of Markov blankets......To understand that read Karl Friston works among others... The prime numbers distribution that Goedel used to created the first part of his famous theorem is essential...And primes numbers distribution is non algorithmically reducible .... An A. I. do not and never will do... Transhumanist science is technology gone mad...Not science...Yuval Noah Harari is an exemple of perfect intelligence without any ethical consciousness, he promote the right for some to hack the human body and negate the freedon of humans... Intelligence has nothing to do with being "wise"....
«Do you claim that poetry rule over mathematics?»-Groucho Marx 🤓
|
Let me restate. You can compare the frequency response of headphones to speakers. You can also jump off a tall building. Doing the latter without a parachute and the former without applying appropriate corrections are both bad ideas. Are you advocating bad ideas? I really got into headphones when travelling extensively pre-Covid. The graph above, the Harmon Preference curve, is based on in-ear frequency response of over-ear and in-ear head phones. If your headphones match this response tested with a dummy head, then they will approximately match the response of a good flat on axis speaker in a room. Perhaps you should not make insults like this,
when it implies you are providing accurate information, when what you were doing is misleading due to inaccurate or insufficient information.
To the original posts author, I think we do that already. It is called flat though it may relate back to the Harmon in room preference curve. That would be worth checking out again.
|
And so, I'm told to rely on measurements, both my SET amps total failures based on high even order distortion. And then we have my SMSL amp I use for burn in purposes. I have no doubt the SMSL measures better than both SET amps, so is the vastly inferior sound quality of the SMSL a total figment of my imagination? Hilarious! Even more hilarious, take this couple hundred dollar amp, class D design and compare it to multi thousand dollar class D amp, both measure pretty near exact. Does measurement acolyte believe SMSL sounds as good, lets say Atmasphere class D? |
