|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
107.219.192.42
In Reply to: RE: Bwahahahah! posted by E-Stat on October 02, 2016 at 06:33:40
Thanks for that. It's complicated reading, but worth it. Kind of goes with what I was saying about always attributing "different" with better, but it's really quite a dense article. It's got lots of different analysis, and findings. It's not just 1 story, like "Yes, tobacco causes cancer"
Follow Ups:
you can locate lots of in depth discussion of the methodology outside of this AA thread.Fundamentally, the study lacked any notion of controls. SACD content was chosen without any consideration as to whether or not it actually contained high resolution material. There were many systems used, much of it substandard including a $250 Pioneer universal player that JA found to have poor performance. They merely assumed that the ABX box was not blending the signals since most use common grounds. Why not just compare a live recording using two different resolutions as others have done?
There's a frequent poster here named Tony Lauck who makes high resolution recordings and happens to have been a college roommate with Meyer. He says while Meyer was a wealthy kid, he had crappy audio gear. :)
Edits: 10/04/16
It's also important to note that a lot of these "studies" have yet to be fully replicated. Usually in medicine for instance, 1 study is how things begin, then further studies build on, refute, or enhance it.
Saying 1 study proved or didn't prove X, Y or Z is usually difficult to back up. At best we can try to find multiple sources of information that overlap at some point or points we care about.
Like, how we decide what normal human temperature is. Every now and then that has to be revisited. :)
Another might be the Fletcher-Munsen curves. If not done already, it may be time for more research, to understand how they are holding up.
Best,
Erik
While the 1930s era research results are likely valid today for understanding the perception of various frequencies, I've always found compensation circuits to sound unnatural.
We perceive distance as a function of level. If I'm hearing an orchestra with a bass drum in row C, it will have greater level and impact than if I'm sitting in the back. Boosting the low end to *fix* the effect of distance has the effect (to me) of selectively moving parts of the orchestra forward while the rest of the players remain in place. Huh?
If you want more bass impact, get closer, i.e. turn up the level!
We don't always listen the same way. There are times when I'd like to listen at low volume but still hear it all.
Having those convenience features would be nice if they work well. I liked the "Loudness" knobs in the old Denon receivers a great deal.
Best,
Erik
Not to sidetrack the discussion, but the Fletcher-Munson stuff holds up pretty well from what I have seen. Other studies may disagree somewhat on the actual curves, but the concept has pretty well stood he test of time.
I never questions the principle of the curves, at all, but most of these studies have some sampling bias. I'm glad it's holding up!What I mean to question is how the study was done vs. the population you are trying to learn about. Do women have the same curves? Children? How about Hispanics vs. Latvians? Do their F-M curves look the same? Without testing I have no idea. :)
This is the sort of thing that isn't usually considered on the first studies, but we gain more knowledge of as time progresses. The first studies are usually done with whoever is at hand, and often in colleges that's young men and women of whatever the predominant genetic stock is there, so projecting their response to drugs, or hearing, onto the general population may or may not be accurate.
Best,
Erik
Edits: 10/04/16
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: