• 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!

"Things that cannot be measured"

That requires infinite bandwidth (the start of the rising input signal).
Something real world amps do not have so all amps will do this in some severity.
In an FFT (and FR) you will thus see the higher harmonics slope downwards and square-waves being rounded off.

And again.... this thread is about things that cannot be measured. Your example is not something that cannot be measured and a mystery.
:):):)

And the imbalance of the volume potentiometer can be measured precisely.
But, but, but the imbalance caused by the asymmetry of the listening room, by its furniture which is just as much, will in any case have much more importance on hearing than an imbalance of 0.1 dB and a fortiori by 1dB of the volume potentiometer... ... in the days when there was a balance adjustment on integrated amplifiers and monophonic tracks to adjust the balance from the listening point, it was rare for this adjustment to be at 12 o'clock. . even if we did this empirically with our ears, but on a neutral, inexpressive signal, it worked very well...

In short, all these things are measurable...
 
I'd generally say that when people talk about the liveliness of a system they're talking about the high frequency response. You get more zing off your cymbals and more shine off your guitar strings when you have a more tipped up system in the top end. It is not nonsense... it's a matter of trying to describe the effect of the sounds you're hearing. If someone says a system sounds lively, and you roll off the top at 15khz and beyond, they'll probably tell you it sounds less lively. It is the perception of the sound, which is hardly nonsense, just describing the perception in how you actually understand the sound you are hearing. And yes there is some imprecision in that sometimes people mean slightly different things by the terms they use, but perception is inherently subjective so it's bound to happen.

Please try to be a bit less dismissive and rabid.
So, you've got measurements that show your system emphasizes high frequencies? If so and if it's your amp or DAC, I'd get them repaired. Or get speakers more suited to your amp and listening habits

Your claims elsewhere about MQA are presumptuous, unless you can be sure you're comparing masterings whose only difference is MQA. Thats Audio Science 101.
 
Last edited:
So, you've got measurements that show your system emphasizes high frequencies? If so and if it's your amp or DAC, I'd get them repaired. Or get speakers more suited to your amp and listening habits

Your claims elsewhere about MQA are presumptuous, unless you can be sure you're comparing masterings whose only difference is MQA. Thats Audio Science 101.
They've left the building.
 
Wow, you certainly do NOT know anything about subjective testing. None the less, you make professional accusations. I suspect you don't belong in a scientific forum.

Let me assist concerning positive and negative controls. I am a retired Clinical Laboratory Scientist and will use a microbiological example to illustrate.

I want to determine whether a patient has gonorrhea. I prepare a sample on a glass slide from the patient and two other slides, one known to have the bacteria present (the positive control) and one without the bacteria present (the negative control). I then stain the three slides to color the gonorrhea organism red, then look at the slides under a microscope. So:

1. The Negative slide will not show any of the red staining bacteria.
2. The Positive slide will demonstrate red stained bacteria.
3. The Patient side will show either the presence or absence of the bacteria, providing the diagnosis.

If the Positive slide DOES NOT show the red staining bacteria, then the process has failed and no diagnosis can e determined.

I hope my example demonstrates to Oddio how important controls are in the work of science!
 
Last edited:
Sadly not. They left the building. But the next guy might benefit.
Jimbob. having the OP leave the building never stops anyone on ASR from continuing to post. Usually we can get another 20 pages of posts talking to the OP even though he is long gone. I think it is funny and I enjoy the posts. I'm weird that way!
 
Jimbob. having the OP leave the building never stops anyone on ASR from continuing to post. Usually we can get another 20 pages of posts talking to the OP even though he is long gone. I think it is funny and I enjoy the posts. I'm weird that way!
Nothing like a lively debate, just no name calling. :p
 
Can it be measured ?

If yes.... take the never ending 'discussion' elsewhere to a new thread.
I think this will be my evenings job. It's very rare stuff gets moved OUT of here.
 
Damn JimBob, that was a big job but well worth the end results on both threads.
Thanks.
 
Damn JimBob, that was a big job but well worth the end results on both threads.
Thanks.
Good job @amirm pays double time for Sunday drudge work.

I'm no mathlete but 2x0 is a lotta $$$ yes?
 
Good job @amirm pays double time for Sunday drudge work.

I'm no mathlete but 2x0 is a lotta $$$ yes?
Your forgetting the holiday pay bonus.
Maybe now you can buy those new Nodust speaker cables you been eyeballing. LOL
 
Let me assist concerning positive and negative controls. I am a retired Clinical Laboratory Scientist and will use a microbiological example to illustrate.

I want to determine whether a patient has gonorrhea. I prepare a sample on a glass slide from the patient and two other slides, one known to have the bacteria present (the positive control) and one without the bacteria present (the negative control). I then stain the three slides to color the gonorrhea organism red, then look at the slides under a microscope. So:

1. The Negative slide will not show any of the red staining bacteria.
2. The Positive slide will demonstrate red stained bacteria.
3. The Patient side will show either the presence or absence of the bacteria, providing the diagnosis.

If the Positive slide DOES NOT show the red staining bacteria, then the process has failed and no diagnosis can e determined.

I hope my example demonstrates to Oddio how important controls are in the work of science!

Damn…I hope my diagnosis was not the cause of his departure!

Perhaps I should add that, in my over 50 year career in the laboratory, I did help diagnose that disease in throat swabs - perhaps that was worrying.
 
There are still one (stereo)mic recordings being made.... in one take. They can sound great indeed.

For instance (when you like this type of music)



There is a player on this page that lets you hear all their albums completely.
The latest from the label is an instant favorite of mine;
 
Whatever happened to the good old days when they used a single stereo mike, or at most 4 tracks? Those were great recordings.
There are still one (stereo)mic recordings being made.... in one take. They can sound great indeed.
Almost certainly cognitive bias is the reason you perceive 'great sound' from such recordings.

Recording engineers have done listener blind comparisons of single- vs multiple-microphone recordings (by producing two well-made versions from the same performance), and listeners strongly prefer the multi-microphone productions.

'Simple is best' is a very common and understandable bias, but it should be tested and, in this case, it fails.

cheers
 
Almost certainly cognitive bias is the reason you perceive 'great sound' from such recordings.

Recording engineers have done listener blind comparisons of single- vs multiple-microphone recordings (by producing two well-made versions from the same performance), and listeners strongly prefer the multi-microphone productions.

'Simple is best' is a very common and understandable bias, but it should be tested and, in this case, it fails.

cheers
I don't know about all of that. I've done a little recording. Two microphone vs multi mike really is one of those things where you don't need to blind anyone as there is enough difference. I have done that test with people blinded however with level matching (which is a sticky wicket all on its own), and letting people decide which they like. Yes, always preferred the multi-mike version. I don't, but then even blind you always know which is which you are listening to. Now I've never tried to get two versions to sound the same and compare, but then again why would you?

The other test I've done is uncompressed with a little compression. A little compression with a little more compression. A little more compression with even a little more compression and then even a little more vs even more compression. Done this with both two mic and multi mike recordings. Compression was preferred every step of the way by everyone I had listening. The final step was the highest level of compression vs none. Everyone wrinkled their noses at how bad one of them sounded and preferred no compression. My highest level of compression was lower than is your typical squashed commercial recording. No limiting for instance. So what do you make of those results?
 
Back
Top Bottom