Debate Thread: Scott's Hi-res Audio Test - Page 34 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 657Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #991 of 2687 Old 06-24-2014, 09:18 PM
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by UndersAVS View Post
High stakes are involved. The participant who receives the most "likes" for his/her posts will win the following:

- a roll of special edition bitcoins stamped with the AVSforum logo accompanied by certificate of authenticity signed by Scott Wilkinson
- eleven inches of moderately high capacitance/low inductance Monoprice speaker wire signed by Scott Wilkinson
- instantaneous advancement to the never before held rank of "addicted member" with "oak leak clusters"


The runner-up receives:

- a 14 foot spool of 20 gauge dental floss for the hard to reach places autographed by Scott Wilkinson
- downloadable jitter laced 16 bit Joni Mitchell music files in FLAC format
- free Google Chrome updates and user support for one year

I wonder what the number one instigator receives? ;-)
dB Cookster is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #992 of 2687 Old 06-24-2014, 09:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut11 View Post
There needs to be two separate discussions for audio based gear. One that revolves around technical measurements and discussion, and another thread for all those people who are incapable of adding anything to the discussion, other than, "can it be heard?". Otherwise known as, the listening test thread!

Many moons ago when I read Australian Hi-Fi, what I loved most about the magazine, was that they reviewed gear, in room, via listening tests, provided independent laboratory tests, and to top it off, the independent laboratory would provide some correlation of the measured test results based on the listening review.

were they *real* listening tests, or sighted reviews?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut11 View Post
Secondly, it allows a reader to make purchasing decisions based on technical data. All other things being equal, if device A has all distortion components at 140dB, and device B has all distortion components under 100dB, I personally, will preference device A. Regardless of whether the differences are audible or not, this is a personal decision, based on my own personal preferences, and my own personal financial status.
If the audibility doesn't matter, then your decision isn't related to what you can actually hear. That's fine, as long as you are honest about it. And as long as you don;t start making claims about how A *sounds better* than B.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut11 View Post
Statements such as "it can't be heard, you're wasting your money", are ignorant at best, and otherwise, downright disrespectful!
Oh the pain. Imagine if audio-video science was determined by what is 'respectful'.
RobertR likes this.
krabapple is offline  
post #993 of 2687 Old 06-24-2014, 09:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 155
So, I gather the Dancing Man is dismissing WinABX (foobar implemenation) now?

Just when I think he's dancing as hard as he can, he proves me wrong.
krabapple is offline  
post #994 of 2687 Old 06-24-2014, 09:47 PM
Senior Member
 
UndersAVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 259
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Hi Chu. No doubt you also saw this notation under those graphs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

As you can see, the Onkyo is quite jittery in general whether HDMI or the other SPDIF interfaces. Although quite similar, I am somewhat surprised that the sidebands were more pronounced for the coaxial digital input! For comparison, here's the Transporter and TEAC:

The author is an engineer so he speaks the same lingo I have been and that of AES in saying "quite jittery." And goes on to give examples of well executed devices as I have been doing.


The fact of the matter is that you dismissed the author's work in another discussion; the "Jitter" discussion. When I posted the Reviewer's information, you replied:


Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
"Your conclusion is not supported by real measurements. The measurement above is performed using a sound card and not a professional calibrated test instrument as I have been using."


To add more weight to your opinion you compared your measurement with the Reviewer's, indicating that your calibrated measure was proof that the Reviewer's uncalibrated sound card measure is wrong. The logical problem is that you measured performance with a different AV Receiver model and have no absolute proof that the Reviewer's sound card is inaccurate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
As I mentioned many pages back, as engineers we know how to look at someone's work through such things as measurement and give it a rating. He is saying quite jittery, I say sloppy engineering and AES, very high jitter. None of these phrases go along with "well engineered" product.


"Sloppy engineering" in place of "quite jittery." Superlative word-play noted. A lesser crime considering that you omitted to mention the Reviewer's clear opinion that measurements of all the components, regardless of connectivity (hdmi or optical), reveal INAUDIBLE levels of distortion:

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/1...9-as-hdmi.html

"From this data, we see that the Onkyo itself has more jitter as a whole; specifically it's not any worse with the HDMI interface."

Referring to Paul Miller's results, the Reviewer stated:

"Hmmm, it looks like HDMI jitter can be cleaned out after all (eg. Arcam, Classe, Pioneer)! It's about the implementation, not necessarily the interface itself. If you read around these posts, one also finds that the jitter value and subjective sound quality do not necessarily correlate."

Regarding the worst level of jitter, the Reviewer stated:

"the most pronounced side bands are about -90dB below the primary signal. To make matter even less worrisome is that the tall sidebands are all +/-250Hz around the primary signal and the audibility would be masked even if one did have awesome auditory acuity at 11/12kHz and could hear a signal 90dB down! This is also why I feel adding up all those sideband peaks and calling it a number (whatever picosecond or nanosecond) is really not all that useful when it comes to audibility."

"What I'm trying to say is this... Tests like the J-test can demonstrate that jitter is a real phenomenon. Engineers should pay attention to it when designing hi-fi equipment. A discerning audiophile should be aware of it and if able to, can measure it themselves and decide if the engineer did a good enough job. However, IMO, to say that jitter is somehow audible at these kinds of levels I think would be impossible."
UndersAVS is offline  
post #995 of 2687 Old 06-24-2014, 10:08 PM
Member
 
spkr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Thank you for the summary on inaudibility of HDMI jitter. Sadly, he won't let it rest though. The lure of profit is too strong.
spkr is offline  
post #996 of 2687 Old 06-24-2014, 10:11 PM
Senior Member
 
UndersAVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 259
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Its common for jitter to go unnoticed because its masked by sound of whistling nose breathers. Sadly, we can't even hear our noses whistling, though everyone else can.
UndersAVS is offline  
post #997 of 2687 Old 06-24-2014, 10:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DaJoJo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,655
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Liked: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by dB Cookster View Post
I wonder what the number one instigator receives? ;-)
"i sense a disturbance in the force"

Klipsch RF-82-II 150W 33Hz-24KHz

Klipsch RC-64-II 200W 59Hz-24KHz

Klipsch RS-62-II 150W 50Hz-24KHz

Yamaha YST-SW800/1500 Subwoofers 1000W RMS 6 Ohm 18-170 hz

Yamaha RX-463 Amp 5x100W RMS

Monitor flatline 1.5mm pro wire

Samsung UE-ES8000S TV

PS3

DaJoJo is offline  
post #998 of 2687 Old 06-24-2014, 10:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DaJoJo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,655
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Liked: 675
so it's save to say that a bose acoustimass speaker has less hearable jitter compared to a klipsch speaker, using the same input device with jitter over the whole human hearing spectrum and any avr causing additional jitter ?
i still prefer my klipsch though .. im under the impression that he knew what he was doing

Klipsch RF-82-II 150W 33Hz-24KHz

Klipsch RC-64-II 200W 59Hz-24KHz

Klipsch RS-62-II 150W 50Hz-24KHz

Yamaha YST-SW800/1500 Subwoofers 1000W RMS 6 Ohm 18-170 hz

Yamaha RX-463 Amp 5x100W RMS

Monitor flatline 1.5mm pro wire

Samsung UE-ES8000S TV

PS3


Last edited by DaJoJo; 06-24-2014 at 10:41 PM.
DaJoJo is offline  
post #999 of 2687 Old 06-25-2014, 02:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 1,890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Liked: 88
Looks like Guy Friendly is back again.
Frank Derks is offline  
post #1000 of 2687 Old 06-25-2014, 04:08 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,909
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 458 Post(s)
Liked: 1068
Quote:
Originally Posted by dB Cookster View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Quote:

Let me quote International Telecommunication Union (ITU) document that is the bible of testing for small impairments in BS1116:

"It should be understood that the topics of experimental design, experimental execution, and statistical analysis are complex, and that only the most general guidelines can be given in a Recommendation such as this. It is recommended that professionals with expertise in experimental design and statistics should be consulted or brought in at the beginning of the planning for the listening test."

This is a 30 page document describing many aspects of proper controlled listening tests and it still says that it is just scratching the surface and that qualified people need to be consulted before running head long into such testing.

"3.1 Expert listeners
It is important that data from listening tests assessing small impairments in audio systems should come exclusively from
subjects who have expertise in detecting these small impairments. The higher the quality reached by the systems to be
tested, the more important it is to have expert listeners."

"The outcome of subjective tests of sound systems with small impairments utilizing a selected group of listeners is not
primarily intended for extrapolation to the general public. Normally the aim is to investigate whether a group of expert
listeners, under certain conditions, are able to perceive relatively subtle degradations but also to produce a quantitative
estimate of the introduced impairments."

"3.2.1 Pre-screening of subjects
Pre-screening procedures, include methods such as audiometric tests, selection of subjects based on their previous
experience and performance in previous tests and elimination of subjects based on a statistical analysis of pre-tests. The
training procedure might be used as a tool for pre-screening.

The major argument for introducing a pre-screening technique is to increase the efficiency of the listening test. This must
however be balanced against the risk of limiting the relevance of the result too much."

"3.2.2 Post-screening of subjects
Post-screening methods can be roughly separated into at least two classes; one is based on inconsistencies compared
with the mean result and another relies on the ability of the subject to make correct identifications."

"4.1 Familiarization or training phase

Prior to formal grading, subjects must be allowed to become thoroughly familiar with the test facilities, the test
environment, the grading process, the grading scales and the methods of their use. Subjects should also become
thoroughly familiar with the artefacts under study. For the most sensitive tests they should be exposed to all the material
they will be grading later in the formal grading sessions. During familiarization or training, subjects should be preferably
together in groups (say, consisting of three subjects), so that they can interact freely and discuss the artefacts they detect
with each other."


dB Cookster-


These excerpts are sufficient (without additional commentary) for use in disqualifying all past, present and most probably all future ABX listening tests, from being viewed as a scientifically objective, measurement metric, of such subtleties! I am surprised, to have discovered that they have been given such weight, within many of these forums. A curious occurrence, for certain!
If you wish to disqualify all listening tests involving audiophiles, including any that you yourself might participate in, please be my guest!

Interestingly enough many of the points listed above from BS 1116-1 were part and parcel of the recent AVS jitter tests. Please show that you have a clue by listing them.

As usual you're demonizing ABX tests and giving a free pass to sighted evaluations, which is a very old game.

Last edited by arnyk; 06-25-2014 at 04:54 AM.
arnyk is offline  
post #1001 of 2687 Old 06-25-2014, 04:30 AM
Senior Member
 
stereoeditor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 331
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayDunzl View Post
Doppler distortion would occur in any object vibrating with two or more fundamentals.
Not in a linear system. You only get intermodulation if there is a non-linearity.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
stereoeditor is offline  
post #1002 of 2687 Old 06-25-2014, 04:45 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,909
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 458 Post(s)
Liked: 1068
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by RayDunzl View Post
Doppler distortion would occur in any object vibrating with two or more fundamentals.


Not in a linear system. You only get intermodulation if there is a non-linearity.
A really surprising post from someone who should know that there is an inherent non-linearity in a moving diaphragm due to the Doppler effect.

I learned about this in first year university physics. Apparently not so much in John's UK school.

Last edited by arnyk; 06-25-2014 at 04:51 AM.
arnyk is offline  
post #1003 of 2687 Old 06-25-2014, 07:53 AM
Senior Member
 
urapnes1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
As usual you're demonizing ABX tests and giving a free pass to sighted evaluations, which is a very old game.
Please explain how this gives a free pass to sighted evals? All I see is that the excerpts above basically say that a DBT has to be done with care, and may or may not be applicable to the rest of the world.

"Demonizing" is a bit of a stretch.
urapnes1 is offline  
post #1004 of 2687 Old 06-25-2014, 08:14 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,909
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 458 Post(s)
Liked: 1068
Quote:
Originally Posted by urapnes1 View Post
Please explain how this gives a free pass to sighted evals?
Because almost every point it raises relates to any subjective evaluation whether sighted, blind, single blind, double blind, ABX, ABC/hr, MUSHRA Triangle Test, you name it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by urapnes1 View Post
All I see is that the excerpts above basically say that a DBT has to be done with care, and may or may not be applicable to the rest of the world.
There you said it. If you would have said that the points apply as well to any subjective evaluation then you would have made your point, but again you related it to only DBT. You again demonstrated bias against DBTs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by urapnes1 View Post
"Demonizing" is a bit of a stretch.
...maybe until you were so kind to make my point for me. ;-)

You also left all of the points that were listed that the recent ABX tests done in this thread properly addressed on the table. Half or more of the listed items were properly addressed.

Have you looked at the work that was done closely enough to know what they were? Are you interested in anything but false criticisms of DBTs? So far nothing I see that you've posted has been anything but critical or supportive of criticisms.
arnyk is offline  
post #1005 of 2687 Old 06-25-2014, 08:40 AM
Senior Member
 
urapnes1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
Because almost every point it raises relates to any subjective evaluation whether sighted, blind, single blind, double blind, ABX, ABC/hr, MUSHRA Triangle Test, you name it.
- I agree that any test needs to be done with care.


Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
If you would have said that the points apply as well to any subjective evaluation then you would have made your point, but again you related it to only DBT. You again demonstrated bias against DBTs.
Technically you are right, that by not referencing all test types that I exhibited a bias. That was not my intent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
Are you interested in anything but false criticisms of DBTs
The criticisms are not false as you pointed out.
urapnes1 is offline  
post #1006 of 2687 Old 06-25-2014, 08:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Tack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Valencia, Ca
Posts: 3,194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 105 Post(s)
Liked: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by dB Cookster View Post
I wonder what the number one instigator receives? ;-)

A McCulloch chainsaw,
A Las Vegas wedding,
A Mexican divorce,
A solid gold Kama Sutra coffee pot,
And a baby's arm holding an apple.
Tack is offline  
post #1007 of 2687 Old 06-25-2014, 09:21 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,739
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
Liked: 431
No happy ending?

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is online now  
post #1008 of 2687 Old 06-25-2014, 09:24 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,909
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 458 Post(s)
Liked: 1068
Quote:
Originally Posted by urapnes1 View Post
- I agree that any test needs to be done with care.
Some test methodologies can't be made valid no matter how carefully they are done. To some degree that depends on context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by urapnes1 View Post
The criticisms are not false as you pointed out.
They are false in an ABX-only context, which was how they were presented.
arnyk is offline  
post #1009 of 2687 Old 06-25-2014, 09:32 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,909
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 458 Post(s)
Liked: 1068
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaJoJo View Post
so it's save to say that a bose acoustimass speaker has less hearable jitter compared to a klipsch speaker,
Wrong on two counts:

(1) The Klipsch speaker has an effectively larger diaphragm, and that reduces speaker jitter all other things being equal.

(2) Klipsch speakers were generally 3-way speakers, while the acoustimass is a 2 way. More frequency bands reduces speaker jitter all other things being equal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaJoJo View Post
using the same input device with jitter over the whole human hearing spectrum and any avr causing additional jitter ?
When we are talking about AVRs, the jitter is several orders of magnitude less, and that does matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaJoJo View Post
i still prefer my klipsch though .. im under the impression that he knew what he was doing
For the day, Klipsches, whether bass horns or bass reflex were reasonably well designed and built. With modernized drivers and crossovers I'd probably prefer them over the Acoustimass by quite a bit.
DaJoJo likes this.
arnyk is offline  
post #1010 of 2687 Old 06-25-2014, 10:06 AM
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
If you wish to disqualify all listening tests involving audiophiles, including any that you yourself might participate in, please be my guest!

Interestingly enough many of the points listed above from BS 1116-1 were part and parcel of the recent AVS jitter tests. Please show that you have a clue by listing them.

As usual you're demonizing ABX tests and giving a free pass to sighted evaluations, which is a very old game.

I seem to have pressed upon a nerve.


For the useful purpose of being accurate, I will correct your perversion of the central theme of my statements.


Firstly, I have never publicly voiced an opinion about ABX testing, in general; so your "As usual" comment is a misnomer.


Secondly, my comments are specific and in reference to audio ABX test, and not any other ABX testing, certainly not all ABX test, as you have also miss-stated.


Thirdly, I am not demonizing audio ABX testing, but rather supporting the tapering of their sloppy implementation, in determining/measuring audible differences and potentially related goodness and shortcomings.


I do believe, if a major sampling (statically significant of a global mean) was organized, and administered, by appropriately accredited professions (i.e. not a lay person), etc., etc., etc. that the results would be worth looking at. However, in that no such endeavor has taken place, the existing efforts, are decidedly of little to no value, from a scientific perspective, which is not to suggest of absolutely no value.


You mean to demonize me, for what you interpreted as supportive, of the discrediting of audio ABX testing; but it is impossible to discredit something that has not attained creditability. Audio ABX testing doesn't have a pedestal from which to be thrown down from, as it's still in it's maturation.


I look forward to its scientific usefulness, when it matures.


I hope this eases the pressure that I've unwittingly placed upon one of your nerves.
urapnes1 likes this.

Last edited by dB Cookster; 06-25-2014 at 10:27 AM.
dB Cookster is offline  
post #1011 of 2687 Old 06-25-2014, 10:28 AM
Senior Member
 
koturban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 105 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by dB Cookster View Post
I seem to have pressed upon a nerve.


For the useful purpose of being accurate, I will correct your perversion of the central theme of my statements.


Firstly, I have never publicly voiced an opinion about ABX testing, in general; so your "As usual" comment is a misnomer.


Secondly, my comments are specific and in reference to audio ABX test, and not any other ABX testing, certainly not all ABX test, as you have also miss-stated.


Thirdly, I am not demonizing audio ABX testing, but rather supporting the tapering of their sloppy implementation, in determining/measuring audible differences and potentially related goodness and shortcomings.


I do believe, if a major sampling (statically significant of a global mean) was organized, and administered, by appropriately accredited professions (i.e. not a lay person), etc., etc., etc. that the results would be worth looking at. However, in that no such endeavor has taken place, the existing efforts, are decidedly of little to no value, from a scientific perspective, which is not to suggest of absolutely no value.


You mean to demonize me, for what you interpreted as supportive, of the discrediting of audio ABX testing; but it is impossible to discredit something that has not attained creditability. Audio ABX testing doesn't have a pedestal from which to be thrown down from, as it's still in it's maturation.


I look forward to its scientific usefulness, when it matures.


I hope this eases up the pressure that I've unwittingly placed upon one of your nerves.
Care to provide some examples of their "sloppy implementation"?
koturban is offline  
post #1012 of 2687 Old 06-25-2014, 10:37 AM
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by koturban View Post
Care to provide some examples of their "sloppy implementation"?

I believe that my comments are all encompassing, as such; any audio ABX tests that one can place their hands on, will suffice.
dB Cookster is offline  
post #1013 of 2687 Old 06-25-2014, 10:52 AM
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
A really surprising post from someone who should know that there is an inherent non-linearity in a moving diaphragm due to the Doppler effect.

I learned about this in first year university physics. Apparently not so much in John's UK school.

The Doppler Effect is a 'product' of a root causation(s), it is not the cause of all inherent non-linarites, as your wording suggest: "due to the Doppler effect."


John is correct, in that truly linear devices, mechanical or otherwise, will not intrinsically produce a Doppler product.


+1 for the UK schools!
dB Cookster is offline  
post #1014 of 2687 Old 06-25-2014, 10:58 AM
Senior Member
 
koturban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 105 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by dB Cookster View Post
I believe that my comments are all encompassing, as such; any audio ABX tests that one can place their hands on, will suffice.
Then why should anyone take your baseless generalization seriously?

What's the difference between "no value" and "absolutely no value"?

Last edited by koturban; 06-25-2014 at 11:01 AM.
koturban is offline  
post #1015 of 2687 Old 06-25-2014, 11:17 AM
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by koturban View Post
Then why should anyone take your baseless generalization seriously?

What's the difference between "no value" and "absolutely no value"?
I see that I pressed upon a common nerve. It has been unintentional. So please accept the flowing as an effort to elevate all pressure.


To your first question: No one is under any obligation to take my comments or that of others seriously or to heart, unless they are direct, personal attacks. I have merely posted my perspectives and prerogatives, in keeping with that of millions of postings before mine.


To your second question: The difference between no value and absolutely no value, is not relevant to the context in which I have framed my posts; therefore, I will not answer this question, unless you reword it, to preserve my exact context.
dB Cookster is offline  
post #1016 of 2687 Old 06-25-2014, 11:25 AM
Senior Member
 
koturban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 105 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by dB Cookster View Post
I see that I pressed upon a common nerve. It has been unintentional. So please accept the flowing as an effort to elevate all pressure.


To your first question: No one is under any obligation to take my comments or that of others seriously or to heart, unless they are direct, personal attacks. I have merely posted my perspectives and prerogatives, in keeping with that of millions of postings before mine.


To your second question: The difference between no value and absolutely no value, is not relevant to the context in which I have framed my posts; therefore, I will not answer this question, unless you reword it, to preserve my exact context.
No nerve being touched here. Only trying to get you to commit to an actual answer.

If there's no difference, then how does one reconcile the statement:

Quote:
However, in that no such endeavor has taken place, the existing efforts, are decidedly of little to no value, from a scientific perspective, which is not to suggest of absolutely no value.
koturban is offline  
post #1017 of 2687 Old 06-25-2014, 11:42 AM
Senior Member
 
koturban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 105 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by dB Cookster View Post
I seem to have pressed upon a nerve.


For the useful purpose of being accurate, I will correct your perversion of the central theme of my statements.


Firstly, I have never publicly voiced an opinion about ABX testing, in general; so your "As usual" comment is a misnomer.


Secondly, my comments are specific and in reference to audio ABX test, and not any other ABX testing, certainly not all ABX test, as you have also miss-stated.


Thirdly, I am not demonizing audio ABX testing, but rather supporting the tapering of their sloppy implementation, in determining/measuring audible differences and potentially related goodness and shortcomings.


I do believe, if a major sampling (statically significant of a global mean) was organized, and administered, by appropriately accredited professions (i.e. not a lay person), etc., etc., etc. that the results would be worth looking at. However, in that no such endeavor has taken place, the existing efforts, are decidedly of little to no value, from a scientific perspective, which is not to suggest of absolutely no value.


You mean to demonize me, for what you interpreted as supportive, of the discrediting of audio ABX testing; but it is impossible to discredit something that has not attained creditability. Audio ABX testing doesn't have a pedestal from which to be thrown down from, as it's still in it's maturation.


I look forward to its scientific usefulness, when it matures.


I hope this eases the pressure that I've unwittingly placed upon one of your nerves.
Arny made no reference to "all" abx testing. Where has it been stated or implied that we have been discussing anything other than audio abx?
koturban is offline  
post #1018 of 2687 Old 06-25-2014, 11:52 AM
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by koturban View Post
Arny made no reference to "all" abx testing. Where has it been stated or implied that we have been discussing anything other than audio abx?

I think Arnyk has demonstrated that he is capable and motived to debate, his assertions, without the assistance of others.


For me, I was responding in context to Arnyk and not you.


You seem bent on engaging me at a pugilistic level, if this proves to be the case, I will turn from communicating with you, further.


I can read into your defensiveness, and I guaranty that nothing fruitful will be produced from it, unless you modify the outward expression of this energy.


Please clearly state your prerogatives / opinions and be done with it. There's no need to reveal it through a series of postulations and trite questionings.
dB Cookster is offline  
post #1019 of 2687 Old 06-25-2014, 12:02 PM
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by koturban View Post
No nerve being touched here. Only trying to get you to commit to an actual answer.

If there's no difference, then how does one reconcile the statement:

Thank you for preserving my contextual frame work, I will now provide you with the obvious answer.


"I do believe, if a major sampling (statically significant of a global mean) was organized, and administered, by appropriately accredited professions (i.e. not a lay person), etc., etc., etc. that the results would be worth looking at. However, in that no such endeavor has taken place, the existing efforts, are decidedly of little to no value, from a scientific perspective, which is not to suggest of absolutely no value."

"of little to no value from a scientific perspective" = the range of value in relationship to having scientific value.
"not to suggest of absolutely no value." = outside of science (i.e. in forums such as this)

I trust that these answers are sufficiently clarifying.
dB Cookster is offline  
post #1020 of 2687 Old 06-25-2014, 12:04 PM
Senior Member
 
koturban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 105 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by dB Cookster View Post
I think Arnyk has demonstrated that he is capable and motived to debate, his assertions, without the assistance of others.


For me, I was responding in context to Arnyk and not you.


You seem bent on engaging me at a pugilistic level, if this proves to be the case, I will turn from communicating with you, further.


I can read into your defensiveness, and I guaranty that nothing fruitful will be produced from it, unless you modify the outward expression of this energy.


Please clearly state your prerogatives / opinions and be done with it. There's no need to reveal it through a series of postulations and trite questionings.
It seems I've touched a nerve. If you do not wish for others to point out your logical fallacies, I suggest you PM those you wish to debate.
koturban is offline  
Reply Audio theory, Setup and Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off