Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy? - Page 70 - AVS Forum
First ... 68  69  70 71  72  ... Last
Audio Theory, Setup, and Chat > Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy?
Chu Gai's Avatar Chu Gai 09:47 PM 03-09-2013
The pocketing of the prism is somewhat analogous to faking a cable switch.

andyc56's Avatar andyc56 10:13 PM 03-09-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

The pocketing of the prism is somewhat analogous to faking a cable switch.

The whole situation is rather sad really, because some really intelligent people like Richard Heyser were duped by subjectivism. He spent a non-trivial part of his life trying to figure out a new way to look at audio signals (a kind of change of basis analogous to the Fourier transform) in such a way that the results would be more amenable to subjective interpretation. He never bothered to check whether or not the subjective observations which led him on this path were valid. If he had, he wouldn't have wasted his time.

To add insult to injury, one of the biggest BS artists in all of audio, John Atkinson, did a dedication to Heyser at the 2011 AES convention. It's not enough for Heyser to have made a fool of himself in his lifetime, pursuing the origin of baseless claims. No, he must be immortalized for that very thing, and forgotten for what he really did contribute, which was his innovative measurement technique, the forerunner of today's FFT-oriented audio measurement software such as REW, and many other related ideas, such as the energy-time curve.
Chu Gai's Avatar Chu Gai 11:21 PM 03-09-2013
No different than Nobel Laureate physicist, Brian Josephson, who feels the explanation of paranormal experiences somehow lies in quantum mechanical explanations. Or the scientists that get duped by alleged psychics (James Randi has numerous stories about those). Or Fleishman and Pons. And the list goes on.

Wait. I'm getting a message from Hugo Chavez. He's saying it was crony capitalism and not capitalism that killed civilization on Mars.
CharlesJ's Avatar CharlesJ 12:02 AM 03-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

No different than Nobel Laureate physicist, Brian Josephson, who feels the explanation of paranormal experiences somehow lies in quantum mechanical explanations. Or the scientists that get duped by alleged psychics (James Randi has numerous stories about those). Or Fleishman and Pons. And the list goes on.

Wait. I'm getting a message from Hugo Chavez. He's saying it was crony capitalism and not capitalism that killed civilization on Mars.
And let's not forget the winner of two Nobels by himself, Dr. Linus Pauling and vitamin C.eek.gif
CharlesJ's Avatar CharlesJ 12:12 AM 03-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

You mean things like...

Cold fusion
Penta water
Reikii
Ghost hunters
Energy bracelets and necklaces
That quack, Dr. Oz
Coral calcium for arthritis
Michael Green wooden tuning blocks

Stuff like that?

Yes, thanks, and many more.biggrin.gif
CharlesJ's Avatar CharlesJ 12:21 AM 03-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

The pocketing of the prism is somewhat analogous to faking a cable switch.
Yes, and 75% of people will perceive a difference between the same component presented twice.. But, then they say it is cheating.rolleyes.gif
Nightlord's Avatar Nightlord 03:14 AM 03-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post

Yes, and 75% of people will perceive a difference between the same component presented twice.. But, then they say it is cheating.rolleyes.gif

It's not necessarily wrong that they do, but we're into discussing the brain instead of discussing the sound at that point.
markrubin's Avatar markrubin 06:01 AM 03-10-2013
posts deleted
kbarnes701's Avatar kbarnes701 06:37 AM 03-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post


[me: "...I'm suggesting that it's possible that changing a single component to have less fidelity might grant the over all sound experience greater fidelity."]

Even if this was a good idea, how would you accomplish it in practice?

I don't know. I think it would be interesting to know if it's possible in principle. Don't you think that would be interesting?

 

Personally, no. I think the whole concept of reducing distortion by adding distortion makes no sense. There are far better and far easier ways to get a system where distortion is fixed by more conventional means.


arnyk's Avatar arnyk 06:45 AM 03-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundsDif View Post

I've recently joined this forum and happened upon this thread. I've honestly not read through the entire thread (which is very long), however I did notice a person's was name mentioned several times in this thread that I personally know. That person is Richard Clark. I actually spent some time with Richard today and explained some of the things that were being discussed in this thread. He asked me to post a reply in his behalf. These are not his exact words, but hopefully you'll get the general meaning what he's saying about amplifiers and a good part of this applies to other audio equipment.

First he explained to me there are differences between amplifiers. With the proper equipment he can measure the output and tell you that there's a difference between two different amplifiers, as long as they do not share very similar builds.

Next he explained to me that there's a scientific term called "Just-Noticeable Difference" (JND) . In simple terms he told me that the JND is the minimum amount of difference that a human/person can notice a between two things using their senses (Smell, Touch, Sight, Taste and in this case Hearing). In most cases the difference has to be 3% or greater for humans to notice that one thing is different from another. There are exceptions were people have shown slightly lower in the 2% jnd and rare cases even at 1%.

IME audio JNDs are all over the map. For example, under ideal conditions for hearing nonlinear distortion with music, the JND is about 0.1% or -60 dB. Under ideal conditions for masking nonlinear distortion, the JND can be several percent which is more in agreement with the above comments. When it comes to noise, the spectral balance or timbre of the noise has very strong effects on JNDs. One indicator of these differences are the Fletcher Munson curves which show significant differences in the sesnitivity of the human ear at various frequencies and SPLs:



At the threshold of hearing (bottom line) there is a 70+ dB difference in the sensitivity of the human ear over the normal frequency range. At high levels the difference is still about 25 dB.

Another example is the JND for long term changes in pitch which is about 0.5%.

The ear's sensitivity to frequency response differences depends on the frequency where the difference is centered and the width of the band over which the difference exists:


Quote:
What his tests show is that people can not tell the difference between two decently built or better amplifiers. He can show the difference using sensitive measurement equipment, however the differences are too small for humans to detect a noticeable difference.

Exactly.

All of the above is consistent with generally accepted wisdom in audio's mainstream. Using modern test equipment it is often possible to consistently measure even the small differences between the channels of stereo and multichannel amplifiers that replicate the same circuit for every channel and they all share the same power supply. However, many modern amplifiers have nonlinear distortion that is 10 to 100 times less than the established JND. Good thing, because if we heard strong differences among the channels in stereo or multichannel amplifiers it sure would be confusing!
arnyk's Avatar arnyk 06:57 AM 03-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Personally, no. I think the whole concept of reducing distortion by adding distortion makes no sense. There are far better and far easier ways to get a system where distortion is fixed by more conventional means.

The development of audio gear over the years agrees with you. The long term trend for amplifiers, preamps, DACs, and even speakers has been towards components with flatter frequency response and lower nonlinear distortion.

Compensating for frequency response errors with equalizers is fairly straightforward and is done routinely. Compensating for nonlinear distortion is generally tricker, and rarely shows up in production equipment. One exception to this showed up in some professional tape recorders from the 1970s and 1980s that had nonlinear compensators in their record amplifiers to compensate for the signficant nonlinear distortion in magnetic tape at high levels.

Please notice the linearity control (R628) that used symmetrical FETs (CR 501 and 502) as nonlinear compensation (adjustment resistor is about 1/3 down and half ways across).


Chu Gai's Avatar Chu Gai 09:19 AM 03-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

It's not necessarily wrong that they do, but we're into discussing the brain instead of discussing the sound at that point.
The two are somewhat indistinguishable though. My opinion is that the folks did hear a difference and that difference was because their auditory focussing was different and this changed the weighting factor do what the brain assimilated. Hearing is a lossy process and information (sounds) are rejected in the processor making its way to long term hearing. If the brain can only hold a finite amount of information when hearing, if we sub(consciously) focus ononeaspectof thereproduced sound, we inadvertently lose something else. It's like when one is a room full of people and we're trying to hear what a person many feet away is saying.
Nightlord's Avatar Nightlord 10:53 AM 03-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

The two are somewhat indistinguishable though. My opinion is that the folks did hear a difference and that difference was because their auditory focussing was different and this changed the weighting factor do what the brain assimilated. Hearing is a lossy process and information (sounds) are rejected in the processor making its way to long term hearing. If the brain can only hold a finite amount of information when hearing, if we sub(consciously) focus ononeaspectof thereproduced sound, we inadvertently lose something else. It's like when one is a room full of people and we're trying to hear what a person many feet away is saying.

Yes, that's why we need longer, significant, series for statistics that will hold water.
GregLee's Avatar GregLee 11:57 AM 03-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

No different than Nobel Laureate physicist, Brian Josephson, who feels the explanation of paranormal experiences somehow lies in quantum mechanical explanations. Or the scientists that get duped by alleged psychics (James Randi has numerous stories about those). Or Fleishman and Pons. And the list goes on.
But the other side of that is that at the very highest level, scientists tend to have unconventional aspects to their thought -- they're a little wild -- and they are not willing to dismiss ideas simply because they don't seem sensible.
Ethan Winer's Avatar Ethan Winer 12:28 PM 03-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Compensating for nonlinear distortion is generally tricker, and rarely shows up in production equipment. One exception to this showed up in some professional tape recorders from the 1970s and 1980s that had nonlinear compensators in their record amplifiers to compensate for the signficant nonlinear distortion in magnetic tape at high levels.

Yes, and I mentioned that in an earlier post. Here's an article that explains pre-distortion fully, and even shows a schematic plus plans for a basic but effective distortion analyzer:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/distort.html

--Ethan
rnrgagne's Avatar rnrgagne 12:33 PM 03-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

The two are somewhat indistinguishable though. My opinion is that the folks did hear a difference and that difference was because their auditory focussing was different and this changed the weighting factor do what the brain assimilated. Hearing is a lossy process and information (sounds) are rejected in the processor making its way to long term hearing. If the brain can only hold a finite amount of information when hearing, if we sub(consciously) focus ononeaspectof thereproduced sound, we inadvertently lose something else. It's like when one is a room full of people and we're trying to hear what a person many feet away is saying.

And all while blinking, breathing, seeing, smelling and feeling....

I have nowhere near the technical acumen of some on these forums, but to me that is plain and obvious human characteristic. The interesting part is how conveniently and frequently it gets ignored in these discussions.
Chu Gai's Avatar Chu Gai 01:32 PM 03-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

Yes, that's why we need longer, significant, series for statistics that will hold water.
Why bother? You can have all the studies and proofs in the world, disseminate to everyone, and people will still believe what they want. Rhinos and elephants and tigers will still be slaughtered for their horns or whatever. People will still have rain dances. We will still elect dumb asses and the media outlets will still cater too foolishness because it sells.
Chu Gai's Avatar Chu Gai 01:34 PM 03-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post

But the other side of that is that at the very highest level, scientists tend to have unconventional aspects to their thought -- they're a little wild -- and they are not willing to dismiss ideas simply because they don't seem sensible.
Which just goes to show no matter one's level of education, it doesn't insulate them from foolishness.
Heinrich S's Avatar Heinrich S 03:24 PM 03-10-2013
I agree. When people bring up ABX testing as their main defense and ask for a more reliable model in its place I just counter by saying "use your hearing, man". It works. Alright, I'm joking so please don't get your knickers in a twist.
CharlesJ's Avatar CharlesJ 04:57 PM 03-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

Which just goes to show no matter one's level of education, it doesn't insulate them from foolishness.
Exactly!
CharlesJ's Avatar CharlesJ 05:01 PM 03-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post

But the other side of that is that at the very highest level, scientists tend to have unconventional aspects to their thought -- they're a little wild -- and they are not willing to dismiss ideas simply because they don't seem sensible.
And, usually nature doesn't use sleigh of hand tricks as people tend to so the scientist believe that they will not be tricked but they will be.
CharlesJ's Avatar CharlesJ 05:11 PM 03-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

It's not necessarily wrong that they do, but we're into discussing the brain instead of discussing the sound at that point.
As mentioned by Chu, in the end, the brain is a very large part of this perception business. After all, it is the brain that is affected or is causing the bias, believing to hear what is not there, etc, being fooled. It is the processor. The ear just sends a bunch of signals, neuron pulses, then the brain does the rest.
But, I could be way off.wink.gifbiggrin.gif
terry j's Avatar terry j 07:41 PM 03-10-2013
on a personal level, has anyone here experienced this 'ability' of the brain to 'hear things which are not there'??

You know, the old example of 'they held up these humungous looking speaker cables and then bent down behind the speakers'.....all reported improvements and changes to the sound. The kicker is of course the people changed nothing. If you have experienced this mind trick, can you give the example?

I am really curious, I'd love to subjectively find out the magnitude of what this brain trick can do.

I think what is telling would be the reaction of the individual when they found out that in fact nothing was changed. I'd imagine mine would be 'wow! really? geez, is that not an amazing thing our brains could do'. Another's would be perhaps anger, or complete rejection 'I don't believe you'.

To the guy (prior to informing him nothing was changed) what would his reaction be to the suggestion 'some would say changes like this need to be confirmed by blind testing', would he say 'no, when the change is as obvious like this then no blind testing is needed'? In other words, and what I am intensely curious about, is it THAT real and solid to him that the whole idea of it possibly being personally created is beyond possibility?

[this is the whole area I was talking about brett in that last email...think we should pursue it somehow]

How would/could the reverse be manifested?? Would I NOT hear an obvious existing difference between dacs say (if my pre existing stance is 'not much difference there')? Does the question of 'reverse' even make sense in this context?
Kal Rubinson's Avatar Kal Rubinson 07:45 PM 03-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post


As mentioned by Chu, in the end, the brain is a very large part of this perception business. After all, it is the brain that is affected or is causing the bias, believing to hear what is not there, etc, being fooled. It is the processor. The ear just sends a bunch of signals, neuron pulses, then the brain does the rest.
But, I could be way off.wink.gifbiggrin.gif

Not significantly.


Chu Gai's Avatar Chu Gai 07:58 PM 03-10-2013
Terry, some of those that heard a difference in a fake cable swap might just rationalize it as proof that cables have a settling time because the dielectric was stressed and it takes time for the system to achieve equilibrium again.
A9X-308's Avatar A9X-308 08:07 PM 03-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

Terry, some of those that heard a difference in a fake cable swap might just rationalize it as proof that cables have a settling time because the dielectric was stressed and it takes time for the system to achieve equilibrium again.
What if the set of 'fake' cables were made and given to someone nearly a decade ago, and they still hear what they think they are not what they actually are? I have a data point there and told Terry the story in person some years ago.
terry j's Avatar terry j 08:28 PM 03-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

Terry, some of those that heard a difference in a fake cable swap might just rationalize it as proof that cables have a settling time because the dielectric was stressed and it takes time for the system to achieve equilibrium again.

Ha, that's the least of some of the rationalisations I'd expect!

We know that 'explabation' is rubbish, not least that it does not make sense heh heh. (the original 'explanation' had a typo in it, but felt it appropriate to not fix it as it rhymes with or implies a mix of explanation and babble..ie explababble' haha)

I am super curious about this whole area. He hears these differences and they are so 'real' to him that he can go to great lengths with flowery descriptors. You then show him incontrovertible proof that nothing had changed, the 'new' sound is exactly the same as the 'old' sound. Which path do the individuals take in dealing with this set of factors?

'You tricked me' might be one response...possibly that might be so. Or was it his own brain? Could he acknowledge that?

Or would it be such an eye opener that he could change his mind and now see the need for controlling this aspect of audition by means such as blind testing? Because the one thing a procedure like this has NOT proven is that there are no differences between dacs (say). It is a prior step to that, demonstrating the need to control these mental gymnastics.

The thing is, we are ALL subject to this phenomenon, it is not just the realm of the subjectivist, it is a human trait. Which is what prompted me to wonder how the objectivist might exhibit the trait, with the example of 'not hearing an obvious difference'. Does it work that way?

Brett, no doubt you saw the earlier link from arny, would something like this be of use in the earlier project we spoke of??

http://www.ebay.com/itm/USB-8-Channel-Relay-Board-RS232-Serial-controlled-/280758385304
Bigus's Avatar Bigus 09:00 PM 03-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j View Post

on a personal level, has anyone here experienced this 'ability' of the brain to 'hear things which are not there'??

I am really curious, I'd love to subjectively find out the magnitude of what this brain trick can do.

Did you see the link posted earlier about the McGurk effect? Well known well documented example. Simple and powerful example.
A9X-308's Avatar A9X-308 09:04 PM 03-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j View Post

Brett, no doubt you saw the earlier link from arny, would something like this be of use in the earlier project we spoke of??

http://www.ebay.com/itm/USB-8-Channel-Relay-Board-RS232-Serial-controlled-/280758385304
Not really. I already have the relays and the interface worked out so it would cost me $50 to get what I already have.
terry j's Avatar terry j 10:11 PM 03-10-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Did you see the link posted earlier about the McGurk effect? Well known well documented example. Simple and powerful example.

Yeah, have seen that before.

I really like this other example!


Ok brett. Am leaning towards the latest idea that was mooted (in keeping with where this thread has gone lately) but I daresay the arduino one will come in handy sooner than later.
First ... 68  69  70 71  72  ... Last

Up
Mobile  Desktop