Thanks, Thomas. After 20+ years of participating in audio forums and a couple of years of moderating them at AudioAsylum.com, I should know better than to respond to trolls.
Ah, that's where I've been going wrong! You have a bidirectional canine cable tester. My single ended undirectional feline cable tester is much faster, but less accurate.
So, you have a (sorry) cat scan?
You should take a class in better communication so that we can figure out what you are saying. Are you typing on a phone or something?Ha. Never said anything about "high fidelity". I'm talking about a fun peace of gear. You should read carefully and respond accordingly.
Those sensitivity numbers are marketing specs. So don't run with them that way.But mine makes some noise on some 88dB-bookshelve-speaker, from a Usb-DAC.
So, you have a (sorry) cat scan?
Yes Don, and I also installed the optional capacitor upgrade too!
He now can also function as a Cat-A-Lytic Converter...
So, you have a (sorry) cat scan?
Could we maybe work up a small entrance exam to become a member of ASR?You should take a class in better communication so that we can figure out what you are saying. Are you typing on a phone or something?
Could we maybe work up a small entrance exam to become a member of ASR?
Could we maybe work up a small entrance exam to become a member of ASR?
Nothing fancy but I'm sure we could put something together with 5 to 10 questions max to determine whither a applicant
is deserving of becoming a part of our community or just looking to be a nuisance.
Or, a more actively moderated novice designation/section, before they can move on to post on the main threads?
The infamous Triphaser must be prominently displayed.Or one of those horrible Captcha things- "which of the following pictures do not contain useless audiophile tweaks"- that'd weed out plenty automatically.
Like the toddler's wading pool at the public swimming pool- they need their swim certificate before jumping in the deep end?
Thomas is the lifeguard on duty and is quite good at fishing them off the bottom and giving them mouth to mouth resuscitation, or just pronouncing them dead and moving on.
Listening Tests
In audio science, the only accepted method is blind, volume controlled testing. Is this what you did?
If not, then your impression and that of others is not reliable. On ASR Forum and myself, we are 100% in the camp of following established guidelines for subjective evaluation of audio products. We follow AES, ASA, IEEE Spectrum, etc. all of which only accept results of controlled tests.
Uncontrolled tests routinely produce wrong results. Many people hear the word "class A" and automatically assume it is better than class AB or D. Add Nelson Pass' name to it and it is assured you go into such tests with predisposition to like this amp.
That is not the only source of error. When you are evaluating audio gear, you focus more, and as a result, you hear more. Your perception of audio is highly elastic. You would go nuts if your brain attempted to capture all that you hear all the time. Normally vast majority of what you hear is thrown out. But when you start to listen to something new, that changes and with it, makes any comparison to prior experiences invalid.
To avoid the above issues, we perform such tests blind. And run enough trials to make sure that the listener did not get lucky with a guess or two.
I would think anyone who wants to learn electronics would understand the need to stick to science behind it, not invent its own notion of what is a proper listening test.
Ok, I'll try to be a bit less obnoxious (nice word, btw).I can't work out what your point is but can you dial down the obnoxious and rude tone of your posts please .
If your wondering to which posts I'm referring, all of them.
thanks
(And again, as I know from my own experience that his conclusion—«I could barely hear it. There was no bass naturally. But not much above that either»—wasn't even closely objective, accurate, or whatever virtue one would expect from a expert.)
It would be really funny to see the results of the ACA being evaluated under the only accepted conditions
Well, yeah, that was his unreliable subjective perception*.
Can subjective impressions be objective?
*I think listening perceptions were sometimes added after the early reviews by demand of the folks who need to know "how it (whatever) sounds".
It was objectively measured.
I don't question that.
Although, here's his claim from his lecture over at diyaudio: «In audio science, the only accepted method is blind, volume controlled testing. Is this what you did?»
It seems that it is the authors subjective impression that he's objectively evaluating ACA.
ACA being some kind of audio-gear, what then about the other stuff he... ok. He objectively measured it. Fine.
case closed?
Subjective comparisons need to be done blind and matched. Subjective evaluations certainly have value...in this case he wasn't comparing it to anything. Hard to know what to compare it to, or why. The measurements obviate the need for sharpening the pencil much further...