Non maskable interrupt?
Bill, Did you make a Joke? I did not know you had a sense of humor. That's very encouraging.
Non maskable interrupt?
I don't know what to make of what you just wrote . Here is the order of how you can measure performance with highest reliability to lowest:
1. Instrument measurement.
2. Blind listening tests.
3. Sighted subjective listening tests.
Without putting value on each, do you agree with this order?
I don't know what to make of what you just wrote . Here is the order of how you can measure performance with highest reliability to lowest:
1. Instrument measurement.
2. Blind listening tests.
3. Sighted subjective listening tests.
Without putting value on each, do you agree with this order?
Short blind tests, carried under pressure with a narrow selection of music, have limited value for an adequate appreciation of high-end systems (as you always refer to excellent gear in your posts, I consider they are the target of your post).
In fact, all the data I have seen indicates that the most accurate listening tests have occurred in controlled conditions, with very rapid switching between short playback samples of the systems/components/media being tested.
Tim
Sorry, I don't want to sound argumentative, but what instrumental measurement can reliably measure the way that a system can convey tonality?
Do you have any data to support this statement? This point of view is often used by audiophiles as a reason to reject the results of tests that disagree with the subjective evaluations they've made over longer periods of time, but I've never seen any studies to support it. In fact, all the data I have seen indicates that the most accurate listening tests have occurred in controlled conditions, with very rapid switching between short playback samples of the systems/components/media being tested.
Tim
We're using "tonality" rather creatively here, but what can it mean in the context of an audio reproduction system other than the way that system re-produces and emphasizes musical tones? As in warm, bright, euphonic, analytical, musical, etc? I personally reject all of these terms as hopelessly fuzzy and would find it much more useful to simply describe the frequencies being emphasized or de-emphasized, but if that is what we're talking about, there is nothing there that is not measurable.
Did you have something else in mind?
Tim
In fact, all the data I have seen indicates that the most accurate listening tests have occurred in controlled conditions, with very rapid switching between short playback samples of the systems/components/media being tested.
Tim
I agree that those terms are hopelessly fuzzy. As are the terms that I mentioned in the post above. However, I personally don't think that THD, IMD and FR tells me the whole picture.
I can see in FR a tonally "warm" amplifier with slightly elevated 80Hz to 160Hz response. I can also listen to an amplifier that I think sounds "warm" but has a perfectly flat frequency response. Where I'm struggling is - is there a way to measure this besides what we already know?
Can you refer to some links or references of published papers that support the validity of such tests for classing equipment ?
I have seen they are mostly used to show preference for some type of sound, using statistical analysis.
I guess I don't have an answer to that question because I've never felt compelled to ask it. I have systems that are, by audiophile standards, "analytical." They sound warm playing warm recordings and bright playing bright ones. Really excellent recordings lean not one way or the other. That has always been my experience with "neutral," "analytical" components, components that measure very flat and clean have always sounded that way to me. I have always assumed that the components I've heard that had a signature tonality would reflect that tonality in measurement. Do you have an example of a "warm" component with a flat FR and distortion and noise low enough to be of little concern?
Tim
+1.Going back and re-reading the original post that started this thread, I can see it was doomed to fail from the get-go. The original post stated that we needed to add back some "desirable" distortions which of course are the very words that will drive many to distraction including me. Components shouldn't be in the business of adding distortions to our music in order to give us "tone." Our goal should be sound input = sound output if our goal is fidelity to the source. For some people, fidelity to the source is really not their goal and they want to add their own seasonings and spice to the recipe to make it sound the way they want it to. And I submit that if you want to add "desirable" distortions to the source signal, you are not in the high fidelity camp. There is no shortage of jigger-pookey devices both old and new that you can buy and insert into your playback chain to give you all sorts of effects to your music. If this sort of tea gives you pleasure, by all means drink it. I just don't see any reason to keep discussing a thread that was started on the premise of "truth and tonality, can they coexist?" Of course they can coexist in the sense that you can start off with truth (high fidelity) and mix in some tonality (distortion), but you will no longer have the truth.
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |