- Feb 29, 2016
Has his work on 'time smearing' been discredited , I vaguely remember reading an article somewhere,
Yes, well, hydrogen audio totally debunks everything and everybody but Arnie sooner or later.First, it's Milind (although your smartphone may have made that "Milan" ) and second, it's complete nonsense. The good Dr strayed out of his field and drifted into audiophile believer territory.
Yes, it's been long debunked: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,73598.0.html
Believers gonna believe.Yes, well, hydrogen audio totally debunks everything and everybody but Arnie sooner or later.
Then it's no surprise you couldn't comprehend JJs explanations among many others why they weren't. They showed something...just not the premise that 16/44 is inadequate audibly.Seriously, I am not myself qualified to get into Kunchur's actual experiments as to whether they are good
That is not a requirement for the educated sane.The notion has not been disproven
Believers gonna believe.And, I certainly would not rely totally on just comments in any audio forum, even this one, to be the compelling final say on the matter.
At a minimum his conclusions are wrong because of his filtering. The filtering alters the level of the 7 khz tone enough it would be audible. His positive results Peter out just about where the level difference at 7 khz becomes only .2 dB in size.I don't think it is fruitful to discuss the paper itself. It requires very high level of knowledge of signal processing and sound which even if one explained, would be lost on the readers.
What we can do is discuss the preface in that link. The paper/research is used as what I call "life west" to try to justify many other experiences. That cannot be done. The research uses special signals (e.g. 7 Khz square wave) to detect certain thresholds. The paper did not, let me repeat, did not use music to demonstrate the same detection thresholds. When we test music, passing such thresholds becomes impossibly hard. That says either music masks such thresholds or that the research's conclusion is wrong.
No. I suspect like with Hawksfords "Essex Echo" nonsense, he eventually heard from a qualified "peer" reviewer (unlike those that had reviewed the paper) and quietly let this die down. He is quite qualified in his actual field of physics, but he confessed to being an audiophile believer http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/milan-kunchur.522/#post-14721 (Q7) which can lead to embarrassing consequences like this, when one strays well outside ones expertise.Thanks for the HA link AJ, do you know if Milund conduct further tests to verify his hypothesis ?
It is embarrassing. Those who should be most embarrassed are the review panel that let it get published with a couple of obvious errors at a minimum.Regardless the actual experiments, the MK papers' conclusions indicate a deep lack of understanding of the sampling theorem. Which is kind of embarassing.
Regardless the actual experiments, the MK papers' conclusions indicate a deep lack of understanding of the sampling theorem. Which is kind of embarassing.
Kunchur beclowned himself badly in his previous forays into audio, showing a fundamental non-understanding of how digital audio works. I suspect that we’ll find similar flaws here.Has anyone read some of the recent papers by Prof. Milind Kunchur?
"What differentiates audio interconnect cables?"
"Conversations about audio cables are often based on naïve and misleading concepts such resistance and frequency response. The present work shows that differences in such common parameters are too negligible to explain differences in sonic performance. In the absence of meaningful measurements and parameters, choosing and rating audio cables has understandingly taken place in a ‘wine-tasting” like manner. This work provides a novel perspective and describes subtle electrical behaviors that clearly differentiate cables in ways that could make an audible difference. The experiments provide an objective basis for specifying and rating audio cables and provide some steps in predicting their expected behavior."
"Cable pathways between audio components can affect perceived sound quality“ – Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, in press (2021) Milind N. Kunchur, University of South Carolina
"High-end audio is a subject that is shrouded in controversy. Aside from loudspeakers, consumers exhibit varying degrees of skepticism as to what affects sonic performance. The most contentious ingredient in the chain is the interconnection between components, which concerns both the topology (balanced versus single-ended) and the characteristics of the cable itself. This work shows that two system configurations differing only by the interconnect pathway are audibly discernable, even by average listeners with no special experience in music or audio. To the author’s knowledge, this may represent the smallest change in an audio system proven to be discernable through IRB approved blind listening tests.
The success of these experiments depended first on assembling an audio system with sufficient fidelity to avoid masking the minute differences being auditioned. Secondly, the approach to designing blind listening tests was scrutinized to see what might improve sensitivity. An extended multiple pass (EMP) listening protocol was developed, because preliminary experimentation along with other published observations – indicated that it would be more likely to form a robust and detailed 32 These spectra contain smaller total powers, reflective of their narrower frequency range. They were measured with the oscilloscope set to a 25 MHz analog bandwidth impression of a HEA system’s sound quality compared to a short-segment comparison (SSC) method."
Were they already been debunked somewhere?
I don't want to waste too much of my life on this. Here is my cursory look at the "cable pathway paper".This is a subjective opinion
Would be great if somebody pointed out the actual flaws in the papers I posted above
You are a far more patient person than I am. I started reading, noted the first several references, then closed it.I don't want to waste too much of my life on this. Here is my cursory look at the "cable pathway paper".
Yellow: Measuring RT60 by playing white noise (with his ProAc speakers in a 2-channel setup) and suddenly cutting if off? Anybody see anything wrong with it? (Wikipedia, NTI Audio video)
Magenta: Assessing reverberant vs direct field with white noise by moving around with his mic ... and he concluded that his room is an anechoic chamber!
View attachment 124146
I'll return to my more preferred activity of watching grass grow
That old chestnut catch-allThe success of these experiments depended first on assembling an audio system with sufficient fidelity to avoid masking the minute differences being auditioned.