|
|
|
Post by gfresh May 1, 2010 (2 of 23)
|
|
With regard to digital audio, factors such as bit-depth, anti-alias filtering, converter THD and dynamic range, and jitter all create measurable and substantial changes to the sound.
On the analog end, component and cable materials, feedback, capacitors, transformers and speaker cones all affect the quality of signal being transmitted.
I wouldn't be suprised if extremely subtle combe filtering has an impact on the quality of sound we hear, however there are alot of other factors involved. It also bears noting that a significant amount of combe filtering (causing substantial phase cancellation) has a major effect on an audio source and is not subtle. Some digital synthesizers use combe filters as special effects for creating metallic resonant tones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Clark said:
A common-sense explanation of audiophile beliefs.
http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html
There you go again, posting another article that has nothing to do with sacd. Does Mr. Winer have any views on sacd? He's never ever posted here.
Mr. Winer is in the business of selling bass traps to help overcome the comb filtering effects in the room that are addressed in his essay.
Common Sense???? It's a pretty straight line from "the root of all audio evil" to "buy my products".
|
|
|
Post by DSD May 1, 2010 (4 of 23)
|
|
We "...hear things that science has not yet learned how to measure. Is this really possible?"
Yes! (see below)
"Modern audio test equipment is capable of measuring everything known to affect sound."
No, science can only measure the most obvious such as dynamic range, noise and distortion. It cannot measure ambiance, imaging, stage height, comfort levels, tonal purity, etc. Audio designers use test equipment to insure all components measure well using known parameters and then they use their EARS for final design decisions on how their product will actually sound!
The Audio Iconoclast http://audioiconoclast.blogspot.com/ will challenge many deeply held beliefs in both the audio and musical communities. In music and its reproduction explaining what one hears when it is not directly measurable is not easy, the common practice is to dismiss it. This is wrong!
It short I am afraid Paul the article you linked is totally a wrong headed dissertation IMHO!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any equipments or computer can replace recording engineers to make brilliant recordings without using own ears and experience to make correct judgment?
Audio is a combination of both science and arts, science alone are not everything.
|
|
|
Post by DSD May 1, 2010 (6 of 23)
|
|
PS. you can eliminate the comb filtering effect by moving you head and body until it is in the perfect "enjoyable" listening position. It is very hard to sit in the same position twice that is why this is worthwhile as the "sweet spot" is small.
|
|
|
|
|
|
DSD said:
We "...hear things that science has not yet learned how to measure. Is this really possible?"
Yes! (see below)
"Modern audio test equipment is capable of measuring everything known to affect sound."
No, science can only measure the most obvious such as dynamic range, noise and distortion. It cannot measure ambiance, imaging, stage height, comfort levels, tonal purity, etc. Audio designers use test equipment to insure all components measure well using known parameters and then they use their EARS for final design decisions on how their product will actually sound!
The Audio Iconoclast http://audioiconoclast.blogspot.com/ will challenge many deeply held beliefs in both the audio and musical communities. In music and its reproduction explaining what one hears when it is not directly measurable is not easy, the common practice is to dismiss it. This is wrong!
It short I am afraid Paul the article you linked is totally a wrong headed dissertation IMHO!
Which is why your explanations make absolutely no sense (i.e., it is nonsense) to most people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Clark can "hear" MARS from his back porch. Even the absurdity of comparing a $150 amp to a $15,000 behemoth is pure hogwash and the $150 amp would run out of steam rather quickly, clip, and blow your tweeters and possibly midranges to a crispy end. You buy cheap, you get cheap. PERIOD
|
|
|
Post by DSD May 1, 2010 (9 of 23)
|
|
flyingdutchman said:
Which is why your explanations make absolutely no sense (i.e., it is nonsense) to most people.
Maybe no sense to someone who doesn't actually listen for themselves. Do you have a better, logical explanation? No I didn't think so and that is why no one ever believes anything you say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then if everything looks and sounds the same, why don't we just go back to listening to 78 rpm Victrolas and watch 13" black and white CRT TVs. To hell with progress. It's utterly worthless! These pseudo~scientific essays are not only misleading but lack any credibility. I will agree with his explanation of listening environment acoustics as a vital factor in achieving sonic bliss but that's about it. The placebo effect is great for medications and can be a factor in debunking certain myths but some things do work and that's where a good set of eyes (in the case of video) and ears (in the case of audio) should be the ultimate deciding factor.
|
|
