What is going on with audioSCIENCEreview…

[caught gesture]

How did you measure it? Any data?

I ran a comprehensive Mann-Whitney U test in MATLAB.

 

[restorer-john]

How did you measure it?

OP has got one of these:

 

[Michou]

For quite a few years it was present in Philips (Magnavox) cassette tape recorders, alongside Dolby-B.
Eventually it disappeared again (unlike Dolby).

It worked quite well and gave the impression of substantially reduced tape noise without affecting the treble.

It worked with cancellation of higher frequencies at low levels only.
The input signal high pass filtered, amplified and then soft clipped. That signal was inverted in polarity opposite the original signal and was then 'mixed'.
This way only the softest higher frequencies were 'cancelled' while larger higher frequencies were only marginally reduced (inaudible amount).
It worked with tape because the noise levels were pretty well determined. With vinyl or other noise sources it would not work as well.

In the forums we have to do our own filtering. Best not to let it get on your nerves (annoyed) by it.

Isn't the Philips DNL very similar to (Richard) Burwen Research Dynamic Noise Filter, a "one-way noise reduction system for tape hiss and record rumble", which was available around the same time?

Dick's Tidbits

 

[solderdude]

I don't think so. DNL and DNR work on different principles.
That is more a DNR (voltage controlled low-pass filter)

 

[Deleted member 48726]

OP has got one of these:

 

[restorer-john]

There was a bunch of noise reduction systems on cassette decks by Toshiba, Sharp, JVC etc which were similar in function to Dolby B and arguably better.

JVC had ANRS which became Super ANRS:

 

[napfkuchen]

In some discussions, the "knowing side" repeatedly emphasizes that one should follow "the science". If you then dissect the arguments, they are not as clear and unambiguous as suggested. In the end, what is bullcrap and what isn't can't be determined easily, unless you're Mr. Chang.
Occasionally you may need to increase your personal signal-to-noise ratio a bit. The cat lovers over here might prefer something like this which is shown to be work perfectly:

 

[notsodeadlizard]

The use of measurement techniques applied to artifacts (and not to natural objects and phenomena) is not a science, it is a branch of engineering, and it is rather boring, although mandatory and continuous in any project process.
In the design process, this is such a tedious continuous process that usually in small project teams it is a single engineer who does nothing else, because he has no time.
In large projects, this is done by separate departments, the equipment of which is incommensurably more expensive and more complicated than the equipment of designers.

But there are no design processes here, at this forum, so everything is much more fun here.

Isn't it fun to watch situations "I have an oscilloscope but don't know how to use it and now I will bring scammers out of the industry into the light", isn't it?
Isn't it funny to watch how a crowd of people who learned yesterday about THD (this is a very scary thing!) but still do not know about the logarithmic scale pounce on Bob Carver?
Isn't it fascinating when someone writes some kind of warning letter to unknown "audiophiles with golden ears" and that formidable warning with a list of conditions is used for deep scientific discussions for several hundred pages?
Or, for example, the open repentance of "former subjectivists", aren't they funny as a phenomenon that deserves a scientific approach?

There are a lot of phenomena worthy of scientific study here, and all of them in no way correlate with the boring engineering of measuring the parameters of some DACs.
So it's all good with a science

 

[raif71]

I wade through the noise by only going through the what's new 1st page... and just check out those threads that I looked at or interested in (1st page only). I refresh/visit "What's new" every hour or so

 

[bodhi]

Most people here are not scientists and I firmly believe that majority is not that interested in minute details of scientific theory. If one is mostly interested in practical applications then there are less new groundbreaking things to discuss day to day.

I have seen this happen in other hobbyist forums as well: a lot of discussions is started by new people who cannot be bothered to read previous discussions or won't use few hours to understand the basics which would reduce the number of useless questions. Old farts might get frustrated time to time, "not this shit again", but it's just the way it is in internet.

People who are interested in bodybuilding type of training might notice eerily similar questions in those forums: "is it better to do three sets of six or four sets of eight in squats?", "should I use whey concentrate or isolate in my recovery drink?", "what exercise targets my upper mid pectoral muscles the best?". You could approach these questions scientifically and going through dozens of papers you might reach a conclusion that one or the other is probably 1-2% more effective in certain conditions but in real world it makes no difference at all, countless other variables make those aforementioned things appear as just useless noise and for this reasons old guys might just tell newbies to just fkn lift weights, eat and rest for a few years first and forget about the rest.

You also have the subjectivists there who claim some new type of bicep exercise combined with some herb caused their arms to blow up two inches in a month. Asking for measurements gets you the same response as from power cable hobbyists "just try it yourself, those guys in lab coats don't know anything about real world".

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

The use of measurement techniques applied to artifacts (and not to natural objects and phenomena) is not a science, it is a branch of engineering, and it is rather boring, although mandatory and continuous in any project process.
In the design process, this is such a tedious continuous process that usually in small project teams it is a single engineer who does nothing else, because he has no time.
In large projects, this is done by separate departments, the equipment of which is incommensurably more expensive and more complicated than the equipment of designers.

But there are no design processes here, at this forum, so everything is much more fun here.

Isn't it fun to watch situations "I have an oscilloscope but don't know how to use it and now I will bring scammers out of the industry into the light", isn't it?
Isn't it funny to watch how a crowd of people who learned yesterday about THD (this is a very scary thing!) but still do not know about the logarithmic scale pounce on Bob Carver?
Isn't it fascinating when someone writes some kind of warning letter to unknown "audiophiles with golden ears" and that formidable warning with a list of conditions is used for deep scientific discussions for several hundred pages?
Or, for example, the open repentance of "former subjectivists", aren't they funny as a phenomenon that deserves a scientific approach?

There are a lot of phenomena worthy of scientific study here, and all of them in no way correlate with the boring engineering of measuring the parameters of some DACs.
So it's all good with a science

Signal, meet noise. lol...

 

[fpitas]

That's a good idea - getting rid of one word posts and double posts. Amir would need to recruit more moderators though.

Unless we use AI for that.

/Hehe

 

[IAtaman]

The use of measurement techniques applied to artifacts (and not to natural objects and phenomena) is not a science, it is a branch of engineering, and it is rather boring, although mandatory and continuous in any project process.
In the design process, this is such a tedious continuous process that usually in small project teams it is a single engineer who does nothing else, because he has no time.
In large projects, this is done by separate departments, the equipment of which is incommensurably more expensive and more complicated than the equipment of designers.

But there are no design processes here, at this forum, so everything is much more fun here.

Isn't it fun to watch situations "I have an oscilloscope but don't know how to use it and now I will bring scammers out of the industry into the light", isn't it?
Isn't it funny to watch how a crowd of people who learned yesterday about THD (this is a very scary thing!) but still do not know about the logarithmic scale pounce on Bob Carver?
Isn't it fascinating when someone writes some kind of warning letter to unknown "audiophiles with golden ears" and that formidable warning with a list of conditions is used for deep scientific discussions for several hundred pages?
Or, for example, the open repentance of "former subjectivists", aren't they funny as a phenomenon that deserves a scientific approach?

There are a lot of phenomena worthy of scientific study here, and all of them in no way correlate with the boring engineering of measuring the parameters of some DACs.
So it's all good with a science

Are you related to Rob Watts?

 

[threni]

My solution was impose a fee per year to non experts so to speak.

I'm not sure that charging money will do much to keep out non-scientific content and/or noise. After all, most people pay to access the internet...

Some chess sites have tournaments which can only be entered by people with a FIDE title (GM, IM etc). eg. the so-called "TItled Tuesday". These are in addition to all the various free-for-alls, so nobody's getting stopped from playing chess. One's membership/rating/title are publicly published and open to anyone to check.

There's an argument for such a concept here; forum(s) exclusively for people who work(ed) in relevant fields. I'm not sure what the criteria would be but given that we have flairs for manufacturers etc as that process could be used for such purposes. Us peasants (I for one certainly wouldn't qualify for membership; I'm just a software engineer, and as we all know that word "software" operates exactly as a qualifier which means "not a real") can watch from the peanut gallery and maybe track/quote interesting conversations elsewhere on the site.

 

[fpitas]

The problem with that is, us hardware engineers just sit around using our slide rules while we listen to 1kHz test tones through dummy loads. We lack the fine discrimination of real audiophiles.

/

 

[Curvature]

I use a DMM to measure the voltage coming out of my amps. The dancing rise and fall tells me everything I need to know about music.

Just kidding. I listen to music on my phone

 

[JayGilb]

The use of measurement techniques applied to artifacts (and not to natural objects and phenomena) is not a science, it is a branch of engineering, and it is rather boring, although mandatory and continuous in any project process.
In the design process, this is such a tedious continuous process that usually in small project teams it is a single engineer who does nothing else, because he has no time.
In large projects, this is done by separate departments, the equipment of which is incommensurably more expensive and more complicated than the equipment of designers.

But there are no design processes here, at this forum, so everything is much more fun here.

Isn't it fun to watch situations "I have an oscilloscope but don't know how to use it and now I will bring scammers out of the industry into the light", isn't it?
Isn't it funny to watch how a crowd of people who learned yesterday about THD (this is a very scary thing!) but still do not know about the logarithmic scale pounce on Bob Carver?
Isn't it fascinating when someone writes some kind of warning letter to unknown "audiophiles with golden ears" and that formidable warning with a list of conditions is used for deep scientific discussions for several hundred pages?
Or, for example, the open repentance of "former subjectivists", aren't they funny as a phenomenon that deserves a scientific approach?

There are a lot of phenomena worthy of scientific study here, and all of them in no way correlate with the boring engineering of measuring the parameters of some DACs.
So it's all good with a science

Glad you got that off of your chest.

 

[notsodeadlizard]

Are you related to Rob Watts?

This is the first time I've heard of this person, but I looked up who he is.
It turns out that there are several Rob Watts.
No, absolutely not.
I have nothing to do with either BBС in Germany or Chord Electronics (wow, there are some).
I'm just an "objectivist" in the sense that there are some objective things around, not necessarily very scientific, if I may say so.

 

[Curvature]

This is the first time I've heard of this person, but I looked up who he is.
It turns out that there are several Rob Watts.
No, absolutely not.
I have nothing to do with either BBС in Germany or Chord Electronics (wow, there are some).
I'm just an "objectivist" in the sense that there are some objective things around, not necessarily very scientific, if I may say so.

What is science if not observation? Measurements are a form of observation. No?

 

[JayGilb]

What is science if not observation? Measurements are a form of observation. No?

Repeatable observation.