|
Post by moko on Feb 17, 2015 17:34:20 GMT -5
well, isn't that just a one man's opinion ? enough with theory, let's put it into practice : even a man with decent electrical knowledge can make that xpa-200 (or any amp) sounds less transparent (more muddy) in one channel only but the measurements will look the same on both channel. how ? by changing the DC blocking capacitors in the audio signal path with super duper CHEAP, low quality, nasty electrolytic capacitors of the SAME value.this way you'll get same frequency response, same THD numbers, same power but it will sound DIFFERENT between left and right channel. Did you click on the link in my signature? Ever heard of the mcgurk effect? It applies here if you think you hear something that can't be measured (or measures exactly the same) Your mind can fool you. Just try it for yourself. youtu.be/G-lN8vWm3m0After seeing this ask yourself again. Is hearing believing? hmmm..that's funny. how can the mind fool you if it's done on a blind test, with the pre-amp set to mono, listening both speakers at the same time which means human memory is not involved and much more accurate than your typical double blind test ? well, isn't that just a one man's opinion ? enough with theory, let's put it into practice : even a man with decent electrical knowledge can make that xpa-200 (or any amp) sounds less transparent (more muddy) in one channel only but the measurements will look the same on both channel. how ? by changing the DC blocking capacitors in the audio signal path with super duper CHEAP, low quality, nasty electrolytic capacitors of the SAME value.this way you'll get same frequency response, same THD numbers, same power but it will sound DIFFERENT between left and right channel. So those are the only things one can measure? FR, THD, and power? Nothing else? i'm sure there's more test but those are typical measurements that manufacturers issued and most people fall in love to Gee.... I can think of a whole bunch of different things you can measure (and you can measure the standard ones under quite a few different conditions)... but "muddiness" isn't one of them. In fact, if you do hear a difference between capacitors, I'd be pretty sure it would show up in the frequency response and distortion numbers. Bad capacitors can have too much inductance, which is going to affect the frequency response, or they can be non-linear, which is going to affect the distortion, or they could have high DC resistance (which probably won't be much of a problem for a coupling capacitor). In the case of an electrolytic capacitor, if it isn't good enough, it will almost certainly be because of some sort of non-linearity near the lower end of its operating voltage range, which will be obvious as THD that rises sharply at very low signal levels. (The point is that, if you run a series of THD vs Frequency plots at different power levels, you most certainly WILL see the difference... because, if that capacitor is bad enough that the difference is audible, then that difference really is going to be simply excessive amounts of plain old distortion at certain frequencies and voltage levels.... which will be easy enough to measure if you measure the right things.) The only thing that makes it difficult to equate sound quality with measurements is that we are surprisingly insensitive to even large quantities of some types of distortion. (So, for example, 0.5% THD because of a bad capacitor may sound pretty bad, while 0.5% second harmonic distortion in a tube amp might be barely noticeable, or might even sound good to some people. The tricky bit is knowing which 0.5% to worry about and which 0.5% not to worry about.... but both will be easily measured if you set out to do so. In other words, there's no problem whatsoever measuring anything that has even a slight chance of being audible with modern test equipment; the "problem" is in deciding what to measure, and in knowing which measurements matter in a particular situation.) So those are the only things one can measure? FR, THD, and power? Nothing else? even if caps have much inductance, it's still much lower compared to inductors. so the frequency roll-off is at high frequencies up to ultrasonic frequencies doesn't explain at all to what happens to transparencies in the midrange. about "non-linearity near the lower end of its operating voltage range" : unfortunately people doesn't listen at that low volume and i think all caps have that so it's still doesn't explain it. i don't think capacitor can make that much distortion. sorry, but i have to copy one of silly comments here : can you hear the difference between 0.03 % and 0.007 % distortion ? I would honestly be very surprised if you can find a combination of turntable and cartridge than can produce a cleaner transient AT ANY FREQUENCY than even a mediocre CD player. Both a record cutter head and a phono cartridge are mechanical devices, with various mechanical and electrical resonances and nonlinearities, and neither is capable of producing clean transients without overshoot, undershoot, or ringing. If you want to complain about a little ringing on the output of a DAC, then I really need to ask you to show me a picture of a similar output from a phono cartridge, and show me that it has less ringing (while still delivering a reasonably flat frequency response). To be honest, I'm not trying to say that CDs are perfect; just that vinyl is consistently worse, across the board, in virtually every characteristic that can be measured.... So, again, in what way is "the timing" on a vinyl record better than that on a CD? keith, from the first link : " Next limitation: treble. You can put as much treble on a DAT or CD as you want. Unfortunately this is not true on a record (or analog tape for that matter). Although 25kHz response is possible, excessive transients are a problem." i don't see it as a problem because theorically human can only hear up to 20 khz. hell, most of us can only hear up to 15 khz. while cd's ringing is down to the midrange. the second link is more like how to listen through an oscilloscope from a guy who appear to sell digital equipments. he talked about bass and square waves. and the third link i have read that over and over again because i also a member of hydrogen audio. it's very narrow 2 dimensional facts that doesn't give much importance to the third dimension : time. btw i never visit hydrogen forum anymore. less knowledge compared to site like computeraudiophile. keith, speakers are mechanical device too, so i don't see a problem because it's mechanical thing. i thought i've done that, but for the sake of curiousity here we go again :
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,181
|
Post by geebo on Feb 17, 2015 17:48:50 GMT -5
So those are the only things one can measure? FR, THD, and power? Nothing else? i'm sure there's more test but those are typical measurements that manufacturers issued and most people fall in love to But are you saying the differences cannot be measured or cannot be measured with typical manufacturers measurements?
|
|
|
Post by moko on Feb 17, 2015 19:26:26 GMT -5
So those are the only things one can measure? FR, THD, and power? Nothing else? i'm sure there's more test but those are typical measurements that manufacturers issued and most people fall in love to But are you saying the differences cannot be measured or cannot be measured with typical manufacturers measurements? what i'm saying is that NOT ALL differences can be measured by ANY type of measurements method. and also i'm saying that sound is a 3 dimensional thing : frequency, amplitude and time. all of these years people only looking at THD graphs and thinking that as long as these graphs look good then it must be sound good. it's the same thing as saying that the sound is 2 dimensional thing. we'll if the sound only has 2 dimension (frequency and amplitude), then guitar, piano and violin will sound the same when playing C note don't be mistaken, i also like looking at measurements. but i never put too much emphasis on measurements because it is a source of bias. if you look at gene and hugo at audioholics.com, when reviewing some equipments they will listen to it first, then measure it. and i think that is the appropriate way because if they do it the other way around, then they will be heavily influenced by bias.
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Feb 17, 2015 19:35:17 GMT -5
My tube amps distor a lot (according to measurements) maybe that is why they sounds soooo holographic and Three Dimensional...
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Feb 17, 2015 19:46:35 GMT -5
well, isn't that just a one man's opinion ? enough with theory, let's put it into practice : even a man with decent electrical knowledge can make that xpa-200 (or any amp) sounds less transparent (more muddy) in one channel only but the measurements will look the same on both channel. how ? by changing the DC blocking capacitors in the audio signal path with super duper CHEAP, low quality, nasty electrolytic capacitors of the SAME value.this way you'll get same frequency response, same THD numbers, same power but it will sound DIFFERENT between left and right channel. Ahh the more expensive part always sounds better. Even there (more expensive means better) the brain fools you.
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Feb 17, 2015 20:02:11 GMT -5
well, isn't that just a one man's opinion ? enough with theory, let's put it into practice : even a man with decent electrical knowledge can make that xpa-200 (or any amp) sounds less transparent (more muddy) in one channel only but the measurements will look the same on both channel. how ? by changing the DC blocking capacitors in the audio signal path with super duper CHEAP, low quality, nasty electrolytic capacitors of the SAME value.this way you'll get same frequency response, same THD numbers, same power but it will sound DIFFERENT between left and right channel. Ahh the more expensive part always sounds better. Even there (more expensive means better) the brain fools you. I just hope that nobody jumps in here and say that all capacitor sound the same geeezzz....Just be mindful that I said Sound and NOT Measure...
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Feb 17, 2015 20:24:06 GMT -5
Of course in designing a circuit an engineer makes a decision on part value, but if two identical parts measure exactly the same, are you saying the more expensive part sounds better by default? Don't take into account things like longevity of a more expensive part, just the simple fact that they both measure identically. Because if a cheap cap only keeps its value for a year, of course "upgrading" it makes a big difference one year later.
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Feb 17, 2015 20:40:23 GMT -5
I also want you to be mindful that I said "SOUND THE SAME." I did not say "SOUNDS BETTER."
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,181
|
Post by geebo on Feb 17, 2015 20:46:10 GMT -5
But are you saying the differences cannot be measured or cannot be measured with typical manufacturers measurements? what i'm saying is that NOT ALL differences can be measured by ANY type of measurements method. and also i'm saying that sound is a 3 dimensional thing : frequency, amplitude and time. all of these years people only looking at THD graphs and thinking that as long as these graphs look good then it must be sound good. it's the same thing as saying that the sound is 2 dimensional thing. we'll if the sound only has 2 dimension (frequency and amplitude), then guitar, piano and violin will sound the same when playing C note don't be mistaken, i also like looking at measurements. but i never put too much emphasis on measurements because it is a source of bias. if you look at gene and hugo at audioholics.com, when reviewing some equipments they will listen to it first, then measure it. and i think that is the appropriate way because if they do it the other way around, then they will be heavily influenced by bias. Alright, I'm a simple guy so how about a simple answer to this: Do you believe that you can hear differences that just cannot be measured by any means available to us at this time?
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Feb 18, 2015 9:02:55 GMT -5
what i'm saying is that NOT ALL differences can be measured by ANY type of measurements method. and also i'm saying that sound is a 3 dimensional thing : frequency, amplitude and time. all of these years people only looking at THD graphs and thinking that as long as these graphs look good then it must be sound good. it's the same thing as saying that the sound is 2 dimensional thing. we'll if the sound only has 2 dimension (frequency and amplitude), then guitar, piano and violin will sound the same when playing C note don't be mistaken, i also like looking at measurements. but i never put too much emphasis on measurements because it is a source of bias. if you look at gene and hugo at audioholics.com, when reviewing some equipments they will listen to it first, then measure it. and i think that is the appropriate way because if they do it the other way around, then they will be heavily influenced by bias. Alright, I'm a simple guy so how about a simple answer to this: Do you believe that you can hear differences that just cannot be measured by any means available to us at this time? Unless the human ear can pick up sounds better than any currently available calibrated mic (which it can't) I would say no. But I will concede that the human mind is much more complex in processing the data from its limited range pair of stereo mics (ears) that interpreted results will vary wildly. Too bad we can't get printouts to compare.
|
|
|
Post by moko on Feb 18, 2015 10:41:10 GMT -5
what i'm saying is that NOT ALL differences can be measured by ANY type of measurements method. and also i'm saying that sound is a 3 dimensional thing : frequency, amplitude and time. all of these years people only looking at THD graphs and thinking that as long as these graphs look good then it must be sound good. it's the same thing as saying that the sound is 2 dimensional thing. we'll if the sound only has 2 dimension (frequency and amplitude), then guitar, piano and violin will sound the same when playing C note don't be mistaken, i also like looking at measurements. but i never put too much emphasis on measurements because it is a source of bias. if you look at gene and hugo at audioholics.com, when reviewing some equipments they will listen to it first, then measure it. and i think that is the appropriate way because if they do it the other way around, then they will be heavily influenced by bias. Alright, I'm a simple guy so how about a simple answer to this: Do you believe that you can hear differences that just cannot be measured by any means available to us at this time? why not ? they still can not measure a simple thing like transparency and yet transparency is probably the most sought after aspect in audio.
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Feb 18, 2015 10:47:04 GMT -5
Alright, I'm a simple guy so how about a simple answer to this: Do you believe that you can hear differences that just cannot be measured by any means available to us at this time? why not ? they still can not measure a simple thing like transparency and yet transparency is probably the most sought after aspect in audio. Please define "transparency."
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,181
|
Post by geebo on Feb 18, 2015 10:49:59 GMT -5
Alright, I'm a simple guy so how about a simple answer to this: Do you believe that you can hear differences that just cannot be measured by any means available to us at this time? why not ? they still can not measure a simple thing like transparency and yet transparency is probably the most sought after aspect in audio. Define transparency in objective terms. If it sounds different are the speaker cones not doing something different no matter how small of a difference?
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Feb 18, 2015 10:51:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by moko on Feb 18, 2015 10:54:15 GMT -5
well, isn't that just a one man's opinion ? enough with theory, let's put it into practice : even a man with decent electrical knowledge can make that xpa-200 (or any amp) sounds less transparent (more muddy) in one channel only but the measurements will look the same on both channel. how ? by changing the DC blocking capacitors in the audio signal path with super duper CHEAP, low quality, nasty electrolytic capacitors of the SAME value.this way you'll get same frequency response, same THD numbers, same power but it will sound DIFFERENT between left and right channel. Ahh the more expensive part always sounds better. Even there (more expensive means better) the brain fools you. yep, exactly as your brain is fooling you right now. actually, you and your measurements junkies friends ARE JUST AS MUCH AS BIASED AS those who buy snake oil cables. they choose to believe that expensive cables can take them to audio nirvana BEFORE listening to the sound and you choose NOT to believe differences in sound BEFORE you hear it because your 2 dimensional measurements can tell it. no wonder cables debate keep dragging forever because both side are reflection to each other
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Feb 18, 2015 10:59:18 GMT -5
yep, exactly as your brain is fooling you right now. actually, you and your measurements junkies friends ARE JUST AS MUCH AS BIASED AS those who buy snake oil cables. they choose to believe that expensive cables can take them to audio nirvana BEFORE listening to the sound and you choose NOT to believe differences in sound BEFORE you hear it because your 2 dimensional measurements can tell it. no wonder cables debate keep dragging forever because both side are reflection to each other Hey if I can't pick it out in a double blind test but you can more power to you. The thing is, when a real double blind test is done, no one seems to be able to either. If you are the exception, there are people giving away real money for these tests. Just remember a 50% right answer doesn't prove a difference. Also I never said that YOU are not hearing a difference I just pointed out some possible scientific explanations as to why. But voodoo audio science isn't it.
|
|
|
Post by moko on Feb 18, 2015 11:01:06 GMT -5
why not ? they still can not measure a simple thing like transparency and yet transparency is probably the most sought after aspect in audio. Please define "transparency." why not ? they still can not measure a simple thing like transparency and yet transparency is probably the most sought after aspect in audio. Define transparency in objective terms. If it sounds different are the speaker cones not doing something different no matter how small of a difference? like i said before what sound is perceived by our ears is subjective. describing sound would be difficult in the objective way. you'll get better luck by googling it.
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Feb 18, 2015 11:05:06 GMT -5
Please define "transparency." Define transparency in objective terms. If it sounds different are the speaker cones not doing something different no matter how small of a difference? like i said before what sound is perceived by our ears is subjective. describing sound would be difficult in the objective way. you'll get better luck by googling it. If you can't define "transparency" then how can you be making statements in this thread about it? Earlier, Keith said it depends on what you mean by transparency. He felt by that it was meant "accuracy." I think that is a reasonable assumption. But how do you really know how accurate something is? If you are talking about accuracy as in your system sounding identical to the original performance, there are way too many variables along the way that will cause what you ultimately hear in your room to vary from the original. The way it was recorded, miked, equalized, your room acoustics, etc. - besides no one really knows what the original performance really sounded like. Even if you were there it depends on where you were seated and what you heard is not what the mics picked up. All along the chain, things can be measured. You are right, what is perceived by our ears is subjective but I don't think that strengthens your argument any. That has nothing to do with claiming that there are differences in sound that cannot be measured.
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,181
|
Post by geebo on Feb 18, 2015 11:08:37 GMT -5
Please define "transparency." Define transparency in objective terms. If it sounds different are the speaker cones not doing something different no matter how small of a difference? like i said before what sound is perceived by our ears is subjective. describing sound would be difficult in the objective way. you'll get better luck by googling it. Does this transparency have a different sound to you? I'm guessing it does. Is that difference not manifested in a difference in the speaker cone movement. Or is the sound somehow different with the exact same cone movements?
|
|
|
Post by moko on Feb 18, 2015 11:18:01 GMT -5
yep, exactly as your brain is fooling you right now. actually, you and your measurements junkies friends ARE JUST AS MUCH AS BIASED AS those who buy snake oil cables. they choose to believe that expensive cables can take them to audio nirvana BEFORE listening to the sound and you choose NOT to believe differences in sound BEFORE you hear it because your 2 dimensional measurements can tell it. no wonder cables debate keep dragging forever because both side are reflection to each other Hey if I can't pick it out in a double blind test but you can more power to you. The thing is, when a real double blind test is done, no one seems to be able to either. If you are the exception, there are people giving away real money for these tests. Just remember a 50% right answer doesn't prove a difference. Also I never said that YOU are not hearing a difference I just pointed out some possible scientific explanations as to why. But voodoo audio science isn't it. is that the double blind test that involves human memory ? i would not call that accurate. i think it has 1 big flaw : human memory is short. although KeithL a bit disagree with me and said it has MANY flaws i would not call making a theory and then claiming ANYONE can not hearing a difference is scientific. in the scientific way ALWAYS involves a practice in which you did not do it like pallpoul did.
|
|