Measurements & What We Hear?

[Inner Space]

Rick "who studied with Robert Herman in grad school" Denney

OT, but awesome. My wife, as an infant, was babysat by Ralph Alpher many times. Also by Hans Bethe, another friend of my father-in-law's. I met them both later in life. Impressive people. My wife's main early memory was finding the "alpha-beta" combination hilarious.

 

[Raindog123]

I'm not sure there is much that is not fully defined about the electromagnetic domain than by Maxwell's equations, which are definitive.

Well, while I absolutely agree with your bigger point... Yet, the basic Ohm's Law that we like here on ASR so much does not follow (and cannot be derived) from Maxwell's equations. (I'll send the interested ones to eg the 'Drude Model'.)

Raindog "who sat through lectures of Stephen Hawking during his post-doc and admittedly did not understand much" 123

 

[escksu]

Because we are no longer 'back than'. Science has evolved. There's no reason to think we have black holes in our knowledge about sound and basic electronics. You can make up all kinds of believes, bus as long as you can't support them with a controlled test there's no reason for scientists or engineers to bother.

I fully agree with what you said about controlled test. But controlled test is just a part of a test. You need to be able to quantify your result and the test must be repeatable with the same result vast majority of the time aka. confidence level.

Regarding black holes in knowledge in sound? I have yet to see anyone quantify characteristics of audio. Put them in the form of a wave pattern or graph. I frequently see people here using words like compressed, dynamics etc... But i have not seen any data that correspond to that.

Since audio is just varying frequency and amplitude over time, this audio can be shown visually as a wave pattern. The characteristics of the audio will be shown in the pattern. So what wave pattern is sound that is "compressed" vs one that "uncompressed"?

Take cable for example, since pple here loves to debate about it. If it does not make a difference, then the audio produce should be the same. The wave pattern should be identical. I only see data like frequency sweeps, inductance/resistance measurement. But nobody has recorded the audio and show the frequency/amplitude over time is identical (ignoring experimental error).

 

[syn08]

The wave pattern should be identical. I only see data like frequency sweeps, inductance/resistance measurement. But nobody has recorded the audio and show the frequency/amplitude over time is identical (ignoring experimental error).

Great, do it, there's room for you to prove yourself useful here, instead of endlessly bickering about "nobody has...".

 

[escksu]

Great, do it, there's room for you to prove yourself useful here, instead of endlessly bickering about "nobody has...".

Yes, i am already in the process of doing it.

 

[rdenney]

OT, but awesome. My wife, as an infant, was babysat by Ralph Alpher many times. Also by Hans Bethe, another friend of my father-in-law's. I met them both later in life. Impressive people. My wife's main early memory was finding the "alpha-beta" combination hilarious.

Yes, Ralph Alpher's first paper was called the alpha-beta-gamma paper, and Dr. Herman said he added Bethe to that first paper's author list just to make that Greek alphabet pun. Dr. Herman complained that Alpher tried to get him to change his name to "Delta".

Dr. Herman became the head of theoretical physics at GM Labs, and performed seminal traffic flow theory research while there. I knew him when he had retired from that to accept an endowed professorship at the University of Texas at Austin. He partnered with Ilya Prigogine there to develop a macroscopic theory of town traffic. My thesis topic was how platoons of cars spread out as they leave a traffic signal, using a one-dimensional diffusion model to get the best fit with data. Conversations with him were awesome in every sense of that word.

Rick "end of OT excursion" Denney

 

[audio2design]

Take cable for example, since pple here loves to debate about it. If it does not make a difference, then the audio produce should be the same. The wave pattern should be identical. I only see data like frequency sweeps, inductance/resistance measurement. But nobody has recorded the audio and show the frequency/amplitude over time is identical (ignoring experimental error).

Frequency sweeps would come down to fourier analysis and signal reconstruction, but I am sure that was obvious.

Actually I do use custom developed software for waveform analysis, and AudioDiffMaker I think is still out there and no doubt better ones. Try using that on two playbacks of a turntable. It is surprising how much the playback can change between plays. Heck, even atmaspheric changes in a rooms make readily measurable differences.

 

[syn08]

Yes, i am already in the process of doing it.

Great, any ETA? Can't wait for your results.

 

[Wes]

Quantum tunneling and a number of other phenomena are important in electronics and not at all a part of James Clerk Maxwell's ambit.

The equations are beautiful and represent the pinnacle of classical physics. I've had two T-shirts with them printed on the front. As a grad. student, I walked into a student gym/exercise building and the young co-ed looked at me, and exclaimed: "WOW!! What Frat is that?"

 

[Geert]

I have yet to see anyone quantify characteristics of audio. Put them in the form of a wave pattern or graph. I frequently see people here using words like compressed, dynamics etc... But i have not seen any data that correspond to that.

Isn't Audacity all you need to visualize and quantify the dynamic range of a signal or the effect of compression? Some characteristics need more advanced tools, but I'm not aware of any attributes we wouldn't be able to quantify. Unless you want to quantify typical audiophile jargon, which doesn't make any sense.

So what wave pattern is sound that is "compressed" vs one that "uncompressed"?

You compare the waveform or measured dynamic range of the signal with that of an uncompressed signal. What more do you need?

Take cable for example, since pple here loves to debate about it. If it does not make a difference, then the audio produce should be the same. The wave pattern should be identical. I only see data like frequency sweeps, inductance/resistance measurement. But nobody has recorded the audio and show the frequency/amplitude over time is identical (ignoring experimental error).

Again, if you think you're on to something use Audacity to record the input and output signal of your cable and compare them. You even can generate the difference between them, altough this will be easier to do that with a tool like Deltawave. If you notice any difference you'll learn you could as well have detected it with a frequency response or distortion measurement.

 

[toddverrone]

Since audio is just varying frequency and amplitude over time, this audio can be shown visually as a wave pattern. The characteristics of the audio will be shown in the pattern. So what wave pattern is sound that is "compressed" vs one that "uncompressed"?
.

https://blog.landr.com/how-to-use-a...ression in music,sound natural on a recording.

Don't make a mystery out of an established audio processing technique. There are likely less black holes than you think...

 

[Katji]

Brilliant how he manages to say nothing in so many words.

A key factor in his celebrity status. /Guru status.

 

[keith_h]

I wonder if there is a bit of cart before horse here. Various conversations state or conclude that:

• the entire chain from source to transducer is full of variables
• the room acoustics are an important influence in what is heard
• the listening experience is subjective

While tests under controlled conditions can provide an indication of which elements may potentially perform better than others theoretically, once a system is assembled in its listening environment, it is entirely possible that even the very best components might sound dreadful if supplied with dirty power in a poor acoustic space (lets say). Moving the speakers about in the listening space can have a profound impact on the quality of music reproduction. In the Magnapan review, it was stated that even moving the head provided a different listening experience. Testing one unit does not take into account any variation in manufacture for all units although its reasonable to assume that all units should perfrom more or less the same off the production line. DSP - DIRAC et al. So many variables.

Thus "the numbers" are indicative for comparison only and while useful in this respect, do not tell us at all how something will actually sound. This much is abundantly clear.

Trying to science the listening experience seems to me like overthinking things somewhat. Or am I missing the point?

 

[Descartes]

So much bickering ha ha believers of the occult don’t believe in science! Remember when the “Earth was Flat”! If you thought otherwise you would be sentenced to jail!

Galileo goes on trial for heresy | April 12, 1633 | HISTORY

On April 12, 1633, chief inquisitor Father Vincenzo Maculani da Firenzuola, appointed by Pope Urban VIII, begins the inquisition of physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves...

www.history.com

And then 350 years after

After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right: It Moves (Published 1992)

www.nytimes.com

 

[jhaider]

On my system - a Denon x6500h and 11,2 Elac Unifi speakers the difference between these players was obvious, and to my ears, the Panasonic sounds so much better.

Sorry, but here is a case where the electronics do make a sonic difference, and the panny is grossly inferior to the Oppo, such that it does not merit consideration.
The sound quality just cannot be compared.

Don't believe me? Try this disk:

Or this one:

Or this one:

Oppo will give you whatever your system can do. Panny will maybe give you some random bleep blorps, but more likely will offer silence.

 

[escksu]

I wonder if there is a bit of cart before horse here. Various conversations state or conclude that:

• the entire chain from source to transducer is full of variables
• the room acoustics are an important influence in what is heard
• the listening experience is subjective

While tests under controlled conditions can provide an indication of which elements may potentially perform better than others theoretically, once a system is assembled in its listening environment, it is entirely possible that even the very best components might sound dreadful if supplied with dirty power in a poor acoustic space (lets say). Moving the speakers about in the listening space can have a profound impact on the quality of music reproduction. In the Magnapan review, it was stated that even moving the head provided a different listening experience. Testing one unit does not take into account any variation in manufacture for all units although its reasonable to assume that all units should perfrom more or less the same off the production line. DSP - DIRAC et al. So many variables.

Thus "the numbers" are indicative for comparison only and while useful in this respect, do not tell us at all how something will actually sound. This much is abundantly clear.

Trying to science the listening experience seems to me like overthinking things somewhat. Or am I missing the point?

Is there a need to dig up a 7+ month old thread??

 

[solderdude]

People read it and feel the need to post their opinions.

 

[Trell]

People read it and feel the need to post their opinions.

That is the defining characteristic of a forum.

 

[Taddpole]

That is the defining characteristic of a forum.

Down with that sort of thing

 

[Trell]

Down with that sort of thing

That would be around 99% of all posts on this forum, in my opinion.