If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
And again, the eternal question of lenses versus sensors
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:36:40 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote: Please give a few examples of these "countless double-blind tests". here's one: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195 Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz ³bottleneck.² The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels. I thought you would come out with that one. That's not a report. It's a summary of other reports. It gives too little detail to enable any of the tests to be evaluated. I have already tracked down a copy of the original paper and commented upon it. I have since encountered http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=3954 I am now of the opinion that the Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R. paper is a waste of time from any point of view. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
And again, the eternal question of lenses versus sensors
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: I thought you would come out with that one. That's not a report. It's a summary of other reports. It gives too little detail to enable any of the tests to be evaluated. the summary might not but the article goes into more detail. Only a little more. See http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf for the full article. The test results for the detectability of the 16/44.1 loop on SACD/DVD-A playback were the same as chance: 49.82%. There were 554 trials and 276 correct answers. The sole exceptions were for the condition of no signal and high system gain, when the difference in noise floors of the two technologies, old and new, was readily audible. For some of the tests the speakers are descibed as "a pair of highly regarded, smooth-measuring full-range loudspeakers in a rural listening room", whatever that means The photograph Fig 2 gives me no confidence that the speakers are up to the job and, even if there are suitable dome or ribbon tweeter hidden behind the speaker fabric (which I doubt), the presence of the speaker fabric will undoubtedly attenuate the higher frequencies. There is no point in testing for the ability of listeners to hear the difference in performance of different sound chains if the speakers are incapable of reproducing that difference. seriously? you're refuting it because of some fabric in front of the tweeter, which just about every speaker has and which has no audible difference? |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
And again, the eternal question of lenses versus sensors
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: I have already tracked down a copy of the original paper and commented upon it. I have since encountered http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=3954 I am now of the opinion that the Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R. paper is a waste of time from any point of view. of course you don't because it shows that it's all snake oil. do your own double-blind test (and be sure it's done properly). i guarantee you won't be able to tell which is which. |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
And again, the eternal question of lenses versus sensors
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:45:09 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: I thought you would come out with that one. That's not a report. It's a summary of other reports. It gives too little detail to enable any of the tests to be evaluated. the summary might not but the article goes into more detail. Only a little more. See http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf for the full article. The test results for the detectability of the 16/44.1 loop on SACD/DVD-A playback were the same as chance: 49.82%. There were 554 trials and 276 correct answers. The sole exceptions were for the condition of no signal and high system gain, when the difference in noise floors of the two technologies, old and new, was readily audible. For some of the tests the speakers are descibed as "a pair of highly regarded, smooth-measuring full-range loudspeakers in a rural listening room", whatever that means The photograph Fig 2 gives me no confidence that the speakers are up to the job and, even if there are suitable dome or ribbon tweeter hidden behind the speaker fabric (which I doubt), the presence of the speaker fabric will undoubtedly attenuate the higher frequencies. There is no point in testing for the ability of listeners to hear the difference in performance of different sound chains if the speakers are incapable of reproducing that difference. seriously? you're refuting it because of some fabric in front of the tweeter, which just about every speaker has and which has no audible difference? And there you give yourself away. The fabric does have an audible difference as you would know if you had ever tried a speaker with the fabric variously on or off. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
And again, the eternal question of lenses versus sensors
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:45:10 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: I have already tracked down a copy of the original paper and commented upon it. I have since encountered http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=3954 I am now of the opinion that the Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R. paper is a waste of time from any point of view. of course you don't because it shows that it's all snake oil. do your own double-blind test (and be sure it's done properly). i guarantee you won't be able to tell which is which. What kind of double blind test keeps changing the components? And then: "The bold text in the abstract is at the center of my criticism. It clearly states that the authors believed they played “high-resolution recordings”. They didn’t. They played what the members of their audiophile organization brought to the listening sessions. And what they brought were SACDs and DVD-Audio (only one of the discs was a DVD-Audio title) discs of older analog recordings or commercial DSD 64 recordings. It’s no wonder the participants didn’t detect any differences between the high-resolution and CD spec versions. They were the same fidelity. There weren’t any sonic differences." Bunch of amatuers. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
And again, the eternal question of lenses versus sensors
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: seriously? you're refuting it because of some fabric in front of the tweeter, which just about every speaker has and which has no audible difference? And there you give yourself away. The fabric does have an audible difference as you would know if you had ever tried a speaker with the fabric variously on or off. if it's audio transparent, there's no difference. on the other hand, if it's a heavy beach towel, then obviously there will be a difference, but who does that? and i'll bet in a double-blind test, nobody will be able to tell the difference with normal speaker fabric either. |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
And again, the eternal question of lenses versus sensors
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Bunch of amatuers. feel free to do a better job. |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
And again, the eternal question of lenses versus sensors
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 00:18:22 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: seriously? you're refuting it because of some fabric in front of the tweeter, which just about every speaker has and which has no audible difference? And there you give yourself away. The fabric does have an audible difference as you would know if you had ever tried a speaker with the fabric variously on or off. if it's audio transparent, there's no difference. Quibblling, eh? There is no fabric which is completely audio transparent. Just try it if you don't believe me. on the other hand, if it's a heavy beach towel, then obviously there will be a difference, but who does that? and i'll bet in a double-blind test, nobody will be able to tell the difference with normal speaker fabric either. You would loose. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
And again, the eternal question of lenses versus sensors
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote: On Thursday, 11 June 2015 10:34:16 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 00:18:22 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: seriously? you're refuting it because of some fabric in front of the tweeter, which just about every speaker has and which has no audible difference? And there you give yourself away. The fabric does have an audible difference as you would know if you had ever tried a speaker with the fabric variously on or off. if it's audio transparent, there's no difference. Quibblling, eh? There is no fabric which is completely audio transparent. Just try it if you don't believe me. This is also true of the air but to a reduced extent. I think they should have tested them in a vacuum ;-) And then you wouldn't have to worry about cracks in the amp tubes either... -- teleportation kills |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
And again, the eternal question of lenses versus sensors
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 02:53:10 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote: On Thursday, 11 June 2015 10:34:16 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 00:18:22 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: seriously? you're refuting it because of some fabric in front of the tweeter, which just about every speaker has and which has no audible difference? And there you give yourself away. The fabric does have an audible difference as you would know if you had ever tried a speaker with the fabric variously on or off. if it's audio transparent, there's no difference. Quibblling, eh? There is no fabric which is completely audio transparent. Just try it if you don't believe me. This is also true of the air but to a reduced extent. I think they should have tested them in a vacuum ;-) Most high quality speakers have clip-on front panels and the change in sound when they are removed or refitted is quite audible. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The eternal plastic versus metal debate | PeterN | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | March 16th 11 10:49 PM |
The eternal plastic versus metal debate | Eric Stevens | Digital Photography | 12 | March 9th 11 11:33 PM |
Lenses and sensors question | Dave | Digital SLR Cameras | 15 | January 1st 06 02:46 AM |
Is there any graph that shows lenses versus sensors? | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 9 | August 12th 05 06:51 PM |