My main system measures impeccably.
What should I do about it?
What should I do about it?
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
My guess is that money and marketting parameters will be the more considered as some people will always say that theory of better sinad and thd is perfect. I don't see the point of ignoring possibility of research that show other parameters important.
If you enjoy the sound like this it's ok but maybe a system with less good measure would be more enjoyable because some science has 'not yet been discovered or is not enough marketting.
It's up to you to trust blindly a knowledge of a certain time or to try to understand other parameters not taken into accound and if it can affect sound in the good way.
Me i prefer be open minded and try to find studies that proove what i can feel.
Experimenting effect on the harmonics on the brain. The study i posted found that sound containing frequencies upper 20khz was more enjoyable by scanning the brain activity.
@andreasmaaan
@andreasmaaan
I have a second system that does not measure to such a high standard.
I enjoy it less, though it is suitable for casual use.
It produces plenty of second and third harmonics.
Sounds distorted when pressed to lifelike volume.
Good System:
Harmonically deflicted system:
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,652
- Likes
- 9,408
The science generally says that below a certain threshold, nonlinear distortion and noise become undetectable (inaudible). That's entirely uncontroversial, and notwithstanding that a few misguided audiophiles sit at home and claim that their sighted listening tests "prove" the science is wrong, there can be no argument about this.
However, where levels of nonlinear distortion are audible, the science is clear that THD is a poor metric in terms of correlation with subjective preference.
Because you could be swapping them into circuits not suited for them. You could be not controlling for level. You could be doing sighted listening rather than evaluation by ear only. See, unless you can specify EXACTLY what you did and how you evaluated, and it was done in a well-controlled manner, your conclusions are absolutely worthless. That may sound harsh, but this is technology, and technology has to be dealt with using actual science, not make-believe.
Handwaving is fun at frat parties, but is no substitute for the same science that lets us image chromosomes, detect neutrinos, and drop space probes on Mars.
But science say that frequency upper 20khz make sound more enjoyable. Valve could create such frequencies with the harmonics. Maybe there is a threshold. Too much distortion bad. No distortion bad. A little harmonics in high frequencies better enjoyable.
When listening to cd you re limited to the 20khz. That is where stand the value of adding little tube harmonics. Then we have to study the sweet spot to have these high frequencies harmonics enjoyable by brain while having a thd not too high
Not really, no. A few people have claimed this here and there, but no-one can seem to replicate their work.
edit: I see you referenced the infamous Oohashi paper. It is not taken very seriously by the vast majority of researchers in audio and has failed replication by other groups.
Right. We here can appear dismissive and closed minded/unscientific when we summarily reject the opinions of those who have honestly experienced major differences in sound between DACS, Tubes, Cables, Op Amps, etc., when it is not backed by measurement.
I hope they understand it is the idea that real but unmeasurable differences exist that we question. We do not question that they, or their loved ones or acquaintances heard differences, even major ones.
SIY is right, humans cannot believe their ears in sighted, rather than blind tests. None of us can. There is solid science that backs this up.
J.J. Johnston in this video explained it to me the best. If you watch from 1:00 in to 6:00 you get the gist. It is not insulting to say that you cannot believe your ears on sighted/non bind tests. It just means you are human.
Read this posting.
Disassemble immediately and don't listen to it until you upgrade all the power cables, all the interconnects and especially the fuses. If there's any way for you to add a tube somewhere in the signal path, do so. Upgrade all the capacitors to audiophile grade ones. Add an LPS or two. Add a grounding box and cable lifters. Wait for about 5-6 weeks for it to break-in before listening. Then, you'll have a perfect system!
If i listen other a week an opa and i don't like the sound then i change the opa for a week i like the other better. Then i switch back to the other opa and i feel i don't like and find it fatiguing. You say it's purely psychological? Well i prefer enjoying my music so science doesn't help here.
But that is not scientific to think a theory is perfect.
And sometime theory that were right at a time become wrong when new things are discovered.
Happened to me as well (long ago), after I put 4 small sicomin platters under the feet of my then Thorens TD-115. As excuse I should tell that I got them for free.
We change or modify theories in response to contrary data. "Data" does not mean "unsupported assertion."
You're making the claim, you need to provide the evidence. It's not any scientist's job to test every half baked idea flung out by random people.
Psychological evaluation indicated that the subjects felt the sound containing an HFC to be more pleasant than the same sound lacking an HFC.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10848570/
Isn't that a good start?
Why nobody here is interested in this science that is not taken into account in the tests here?
