|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.255.203.68
In Reply to: Re: Much simpler answer posted by andy19191 on February 27, 2007 at 03:54:40:
...if something cannot be measured it cannot be addressed by the application of scientific knowledge.Perhaps now you are beginning to understand the underlying challenge and limitations of current metrics. In the real world, final voicing of virtually every kind of audio component is done by human ear, not THD plots.
Follow Ups:
> > ...if something cannot be measured it cannot be addressed by the
> > application of scientific knowledge.
>
> Perhaps now you are beginning to understand the underlying challenge
> and limitations of current metrics.I was simply stating how to determine what is and what is not in the scientific domain. If John considers his observations to be unmeasurable then his statements are not in conflict with anything I have signed up for.
> In the real world, final voicing of virtually every kind of audio
> component is done by human ear, not THD plots.Listening under controlled conditions is a perfectly valid form of measurement. However, if a sound is loud enough to be heard under such conditions it will be straightforward to measure using more reliable and repeatable techniques.
I was simply stating how to determine what is and what is not in the scientific domain. >For stating the obvious.
Listening under controlled conditions is a perfectly valid form of measurement.
Right. We've known that for decades.
However, if a sound is loud enough to be heard under such conditions it will be straightforward to measure using more reliable and repeatable techniques.
Using what metrics? Which combination fully characterize the entire envelope of performance characteristics of any audio component? Every audio designer on the planet will surely benefit from your unique knowledge in this regard. Make it good!
> > However, if a sound is loud enough to be heard under such conditions
> > it will be straightforward to measure using more reliable and
> > repeatable techniques.
>
> Using what metrics?Metrics? Using a microphone plus normal kit.
> Which combination fully characterize the entire envelope of
> performance characteristics of any audio component?What has that, whatever it means, got to do with measuring sound?
> Every audio designer on the planet will surely benefit from your
> unique knowledge in this regard. Make it good!
What you propose Andy is what has been done for the last 70 years. Why do you think it will change due to your suggestion?The question is which measurements are meaningful and correlate with the sound. It is clear that the basic metrics like THD and IM do not.
So, what Estat wants to know is WHAT are you going to measure and how are you going to arrive at that metric and how does it correlate with listening? Assuming of course you accept that different gear actually sounds different, which at the moment it doesn't sound like you accept this basic tennet of the discussion. If you don't think that then there is no point in developing a metric to correlate to something that doesn't exist!
First of all, let's agree on the definition of "metric" in the proper context. My dictionary says this:A standard of measurement.
Anyone disagree? So what metrics do we have for measuring audio gear? THD. IM. Frequency response. Phase shift.
Metrics? Using a microphone plus normal kit.
Which measurement(s) will the microphone be capturing? Not sure what you mean by "kit". Is that a metric? What does it measure? What is the unit of measure?
> Which measurement(s) will the microphone be capturing?Usually they measure a variation in pressure.
> Not sure what you mean by "kit".
A microphone on its own is not much use without supporting kit such as a power supply, preamp, A/D and a storage device.
> Is that a metric?
Is what a metric?
> What does it measure?
Assuming it refers to the microphone, it usually measures a variation in pressure.
> What is the unit of measure?
Whatever unit for pressure you want. Pascal is quite a good one.
I am not sure much clarification has occurred although I do still remain intrigued.
Andy19191919191:However, if a sound is loud enough to be heard under such conditions it will be straightforward to measure using more reliable and repeatable techniques.E-Stat: Using what metrics? Which combination fully characterize the entire envelope of performance characteristics of any audio component?
Andy19191919191:Metrics? Using a microphone plus normal kit.
E-Stat: First of all, let's agree on the definition of "metric" in the proper context. My dictionary says this: A standard of measurement...
So what metrics do we have for measuring audio gear? THD. IM. Frequency response. Phase shift. Soooooooo.
Which measurement(s) will the microphone be capturing?Andy19191919191: Usually they measure a variation in pressure...Whatever unit for pressure you want. Pascal is quite a good one.
_________________________________________________________________________________
So, the measurement of pressure alone is capable of fully characterizing the complete set of all performance criteria of high resolution audio components. Huh?
> So, the measurement of pressure alone is capable of fully
> characterizing the complete set of all performance criteria of high
> resolution audio components. Huh????
I am still find it hard to work out what you are going on about. Are you discussing measuring the difference between two sounds that you can hear or are you discussing something else? If it is something else can you please let me know what it is.
You fail to grasp the concept that the conventional measurements on which you base your qualitative judgement (through your education, of course) are completely useless. Incapable of rendering meaningful correlations to that which is heard.If you haven't already, I recommend you buy the cheapest pro amp on the market like a Behringer and enjoy ordinary audio quality.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: