|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: One more thing, while I'm at it. posted by Ubiquitous Skittercat ;,,,~ on November 12, 2002 at 19:32:49:
If the musical experience were limited to listening to static sine waves or even two frequency intermodulated tones, then I would agree with the Jit Meister - and the old McIntosh clinics where they presented you with a mighty impressive looking THD chart generated by their high buck SOTA test gear. Yessiree, we can measure tones right on down to the basement! For those individuals who enjoy listening to test tones, then the audible results would likely correlate with the measurements. Fine.Music lovers, on the other hand, listen to a very different environment. The only constant here is change. This world consists of a highly complex, harmonically-rich, and dynamic environment of REAL music. Of all the engineers here in the Asylum, I find Jim Johnson's (aka jj) comments the most compelling. He acknowledges that all standard measurements are essentially useless. It's not so much that they are wrong - just irrelevant. He states that indeed all that can be heard CAN be measured using tests. It's just that such relevant tests would be extremely complex and are NOT the ones touted here as being authoritative.
Follow Ups:
Which is why I disagree with rcrump about the validity of DBTs. You have to figure out how to corelate what we hear, with what we can measure if you are to get realiable repeatable results. DBT's are also important in dcided what is important to measure, and what isn't."Yessiree, we can measure tones right on down to the basement! For those individuals who enjoy listening to test tones, then the audible results would likely correlate with the measurements. Fine."
You also have to understand that the simpler a test the better(Good ol' worn out KISS). The trick coming up with the right surrogate test signal to achieve the desired results. It is quite possible to make a test signal so complex that a room full of Cray computers can't properly analyse it. So what good is that?
It is quite possible to make a test signal so complex that a room full of Cray computers can't properly analyse it. So what good is that?Halleluiah! This is what we lay people call music , the reproduction of which is the raison d'etre for the high fidelity component. Easily quantifiable tests based on simple tones makes for easy test results but establishes useless proof. That is unless of course you spent your twenty grand on equipment for listening to test tones.
"That is unless of course you spent your twenty grand on equipment for listening to test tones."Well, that is what test equipment does best.However, music is a series of harmonically related tones. The difficulty that test equipment has with it is that it is random in it's nature.
Test equipment is great for evaluating test tones, not music. It can quantify meaningful differences only for those who choose to listen to test tones.For those of us who listen to "a series of harmonically related tones" , however, the results from the test gear does not yet correlate with audible results.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: