PS Audio speaks

[mhardy6647]

Sighted listening is critical for determining how equipment looks

Is it? Could it not be done more objectively and accurately with, e.g., reflectance spectroscopy, neutron scanning, or some sort of interferometry?

 

[Hotwetrat]

Is it? Could it not be done more objectively and accurately with, e.g., reflectance spectroscopy, neutron scanning, or some sort of interferometry?

You'd need a baseline for what is 'correct'

 

[AnalogSteph]

One interesting tidbit about PS Audio is that they actually bought Ultra Analog Inc. in the early '90s, a Bay Area-based maker of high-performance potted hybrid DAC modules like the 20-bit D20400 and D20400A that found use in a number of high-end CD players and DACs (apparently based on trimmed AD parts and not the most reliable, but their performance numbers were in fact unmatched at the time).

Not sure it was the best long-term investment, the business would have kept going for several years but with advances in delta-sigma converter technology these solutions would have become hopelessly obsolete in 1999 at the latest (the year of 24/192, built-in DSD and HDCD support and dynamic range reaching 120 dB(A)). Mind you, so were other digital electronics in the '90s.

 

[Katji]

Is it? Could it not be done more objectively and accurately with, e.g., reflectance spectroscopy, neutron scanning, or some sort of interferometry?

And AI. With DSP options like "WAF" rating.

 

[mhardy6647]

You'd need a baseline for what is 'correct'

heh, an aesthetic reference. good point!

And AI. With DSP options like "WAF" rating.

So... a WAF adjustment parameter. I'd definitely recommend patenting that!

 

[egellings]

How could you ever fit 120dB of dynamic range into a living room? The low end of the range would be inaudible, and if you turned up the volume to just make it barely audible, then the high end of the range would blow the windows out. It's technically feasible to generate that range, but it's like asking for a drop forge when all you need is a tack hammer.

 

[Foulchet]

Well we know that colours can have some predicatble effects on the brain. Hearing is computed in the brain from many stimuli as every other senses. So there might be a baseline to predict a bit of what will be "heard" based on what you see. Very angled and industrial devices : metallic, analytical sound ? Woody ones : more warmth ? Relaxing atmosphere probably also do change how the brain "receive" what is heard by ears.
Maybe "placebo" has a lot more effect that measured differences there.

 

[egellings]

Sight can definitely affect your perception of sound. If you like how it looks and it's not blowing it badly sound-wise, it will most likely fly your kite. The amount of the effect can vary; as an example, an interior designer's perception and a garage mechanic's perception will likely be differently affected based on equipment appearance. The designer wants it to blend in with the deccor, while the mechanic may like it to look techy, even if it sticks out like a sore thumb sight-wise.

 

[amirm]

How could you ever fit 120dB of dynamic range into a living room? The low end of the range would be inaudible, and if you turned up the volume to just make it barely audible, then the high end of the range would blow the windows out. It's technically feasible to generate that range, but it's like asking for a drop forge when all you need is a tack hammer.

That would only happen with a frequency sweep with equal amplitude. Music has spectrum that drops exponentially.