|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.200.116.196
In Reply to: Re: Unfortunately, the recording is not accurate to the original event posted by KlausR. on March 30, 2007 at 06:33:49:
Audio recording and playback is not an attempt to recreate an original event. It is an attempt to create an illusion of an original event from a single perspective. The difference is lost on so many and yet it is sooooo significant. People who chase "accuracy" in components are chasing their tails and looking for trees when they should be looking at a forest. All the accuracy in the world between the transducers will be meaningless if one ignores the fact that recording and playback is essentially smoke and mirrors. It's an aural illusion. It has to be looked at as a system and one has to forget about the idea of "recreation" of an original event and focus on the illusion.
Follow Ups:
Accuracy to the original event is one goal, accuracy to the source (i.e. recording) is another. I for one am trying to achieve the second.When a manufacturer claims that his speakers are the best sounding, this is difficult to verify. When a manufacturer claims that his speakers are the most accurate you just need to look at the measurements. The fact that most speaker manufacturers don't provide measurements when asked speaks for itself.
"Accuracy to the original event is one goal,"It is not a meaningful goal since stereo or even multi-channel recording and playback are not designed to do that. Again they are designed to create an "illusion" of an original event "from a single perspective." Huge difference.
" accuracy to the source (i.e. recording) is another."That is an absolutely meaningless reference since no "recording" as a "stand alone" entity has no intrinsic sound of it's own. You have to use playback equipment to get any sound out of a recording so you are using equipment as a reference. Another tail chase in the end.
"I for one am trying to achieve the second."How? What playback system do you use as your ultimate reference? And whay set that particular limit/signature on your reference?
"When a manufacturer claims that his speakers are the best sounding, this is difficult to verify."Actually it is meaningless because speakers do not exist in a vacuum. They need a room and a playback system and a recording to have any sound at all. All of those things impact the sound so the claim has no context without all those other elements.
" When a manufacturer claims that his speakers are the most accurate you just need to look at the measurements."Absolute balony. Speakers are transducers. They they turn one kind of energy, electrical into another, sound preasure. The idea of accuracy in speakers as a single component is absurd. At least with amps and preamps you can literally compare the input signal to the output signal and determine it's accuracy. How do you do that with speakers?Yet another tail chase.
" The fact that most speaker manufacturers don't provide measurements when asked speaks for itself."Indeed. But perhaps not in the way you think. I suspect they often realize what an absurd idea accuracy is in speakers as a component.
AS
"they are designed to create an "illusion" of an original event "from a single perspective."That's pretty much what old Julian Hirsch used to say about stereo reproduction. I believe he called it a "plausible illusion."
On the other hand, I don't think you are really in a position to prescribe what audio goals are possible, especially with multi-channel processing. For example, here's an account of a system jj had a hand in developing when he was still with AT & T. He invited Asylum memebers to come and listen to it, but unfortunately we were unable to do so at the time. But Wes Philips was impressed and evidently John Atkinson heard it, too, but I don't know his reaction.
http://www.onhifi.com/features/20010615.htm
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Any updates? I actually hadn't seen this link before.
I have no further information on it and I gather the technology is proprietary to AT & T.jj retired from AT & T and the last I heard, he was working for Microsoft.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
"On the other hand, I don't think you are really in a position to prescribe what audio goals are possible, especially with multi-channel processing."Multichannel is just stereo with more channels. It essentially works the same way. It still is an attempt at creating an aural illusion and it is still limited to a singular perspective.So the goal remains the same, unless it is being missused of course.
Analog,Don't waste your precious time with Pat D. he he just likes to disagree with subjectivists no matter what they say. Pat D has no real opinions of his own. Instead he just mindlessly parrots whatever the most intelligent or prominent (in Pat D's opinion that is) objectivist happens to say at that time. Even then no matter what Pat D says, what he supposedly believes can change faster than the weather.
An excellent example of this behavior is how Pat D responded to my statement as I originally stated it, i.e.: "There are measurements that correlate to everything we hear in audio components be it amps, wires, etc. However the typical measurements used today in audio don’t correlate with what we hear."
At first on 3/9/07 Pat D disagreed with me because he felt I was stating ONLY subjectivists believed that statement to be true. So Pat D disagreed with me and called upon Real JJ's authority as evidence that most rationlists believe this statement. Pat D stated: "The trouble is that most rationalists accept that as well. jj said the same thing, for example. So there is nothing peculiar to subjectivists here." Pat D's complete post can be seen here: http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=29742&highlight=JJ+Pat+D&r=&session=
Pat D now completely disagrees with what he said on 3/9/07 Even though he used Real JJ as backup of his belief that most rationalists would agree with my statement. Now on 3/30/07 21 days later Pat D agreed with Klaus. Pat D now states: "KlausR is right. He is much more knowledgeable than I am, so if what he and I say seem to conflict, it much safer to follow him."
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/30691.htmlOn top of that Pat D claims he ONLY allegedly changed his mind. Now Pat D claims: As for the alleged changing my mind, it was only with regard to the validity YOUR formulations in what I took to be casual conversation. (PAAAA-LLEEAASSEEE when did Pat D and I ever have a casual conversation?)
Pat D is now claiming: I simply have had more time to think about YOUR formulation." But the reality is Pat D doesn't do anything but follow the leader. When Real JJ agreed, Pat D agreed, when Klaus disagrees Pat D disagrees. See Pat D only follows what other, better informed, at least in Pat D's opinion objectivists believe. It should now be readily apparent everyone that Pat D has no real opinion of his own. He just "changes his mind" and believes whatever the most intelligent or prominent in Pat D's opinion objectivist has to say that's posting at that time. How can one hold an intelligent conversation with such a person?
Pat D's present belief has to mean that he now believes Real JJ is wrong and most rational people don't agree with my statement. I guess now that Real JJ isn't posting and Klaus is that's Pat new idol. So now that Klaus disagrees with me and feels that I made nonsense assertions--Pat D agreed with Klaus! My friends that's what I mean when I call Pat D an audio politician.
Sure people can change their minds, but Pat D doesn't even form opinions for himself. He simply parrots what the objectivist that disagrees with any subjectivist's post says. Even if that means completely disagreeing with something he said 3 weeks earlier.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
I know when to walk away. After I leave him babbling. It happened so quickly this time. Pavlov's dog?
No wonder why you don't discuss reasonably: reasoned discussion might lead to a modification of your opinions.And here's another lesson in logic: you are drawing a generalisation from extremely limited evidence. I simply took another look at something YOU said and reevaluated it, in this instance, because of something KlausR said. He has had virtually no role in the formation of my basic opinions about audio, opinions which you seem constitutionally unable to grasp. You don't seem to be able to grasp suspending judgment in the absence of sufficient data:
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." ------Sherlock Holmes in a Scandal in Bohemia.
http://www.bcpl.net/~lmoskowi/HolmesQuotes/q.detection.html
Meanwhile, to get back to audio matters, you still have failed to specify just what measurements you are talking about but worry about vague generalities.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat D-Cake,The reason I CANNOT discuss reasonably with the likes of you is you have no opinions of your own SQQWWWAAACCCCK! You simply have nothing of value to add that could possibly lead to a modification of my opinions. You seem to forget that I speak with intelligent, rational objectivists like Roger Russell & Tom Danley. Next to them you pale in comparison and sadly enough are revealed to be a person who simply wishes to muddy the waters and be correct at all costs. You don't want to talk/debate/argue to discover whatever truths there are to be discovered. You want to make converts, to your misguided POV. I'll grant you try to give an apperance of an intelligent rebuttle, and occasionally you almost succeed, but sadly your bitterness always causes you to stumble.
==================================================================
As I read your posts I see you vain attempts to obfuscate what the real topic is, so you can hijack this thread into another Pat D-Cake is always right thread. You mistakenly claim that I'm drawing a generalisation from extremely limited evidence. Perhaps if you let your bitterness, obsession with me and being correct at all costs go you'd realize you're wrong yet once again. I've looked at 100's if not 1000's of specs, which brought me to the conclusion that everyone except a few lunatic-fringe objectivists disagree with. Todays accepted audio measurements that are typically used to define a specific components performance in no way correlates with which component will sound the most realistic. Hence they don't correlate with what we hear! Sorry but that's the sad truth and something you apparently are unable to accept, but that just goes along with your always having to be correct, even when you're not.
==================================================================
Now you're claiming Klaus has had virtually no role in the formation of your basic opinions about audio, opinions which you believe I'm constitutionally unable to grasp. I understand that's what you claim is the truth Pat D-Cake, but the sad fact is all anyone needs to do is go back and re-read your very many posts to see Real JJ opinions were your opinions at one time and now that he no longer posts here Klaus's opinions are starting to be your opinions. I don't believe you honestly have any opinions of your own. IMHO you just parrot the opinions of others, period. Here is something which you seem constitutionally unable to grasp, i.e. I believe you're a weak-minded man who cannot make up his own mind and whose words I seldom if ever trust or believe to be true.
===================================================================
Yet once again we see Pat D-Cake making up pure fiction to support his inabilities to actually form opinions for himself. I quite well understand suspending judgment in the absence of sufficient data. That's what a rational, intelligent person would and should do. But you forget, I don't see you as a rational, intelligent person. Instead I see you as being incapable of making up your own mind Pat D-Cake. What you call suspending judgment in the absence of sufficient data, I see as your simply waiting for some much more intelligent and better informed objectivist to say in a post so you can later reword and parrot the comments, in the quise of reformulating your opinion.
===================================================================
Now as you further attempt to create more chaos by claiming I've still failed to specify just what measurements I'm talking about while I worry about vague generalities. I'm sorry to say you just show how little you understand about audio components, their measurements and how little they correlate with what we hear. You see Pat D-Cake I'm not worried about anything. I have the best sounding audio system I've ever owned. It's considerably superior to anything I can buy in any audio store here in the Orlando area.It's actually people like you and POLLYinFLA who'd benefit from this if you could let go with all your bitterness and obsession with being correct at all costs. I'm taking about the typical measurements used with any audio component amp, preamp, CD player etc. These supposed vague generalities is just one more lame attempt to get others to do your work for you. If you don't know what today's accepted measurements are and which ones are typically used I suggest you look up some components online. For once get off your lazy ass and do some research on the subject and stop always requiring everyone do your work for you! You are pitiful Pat D-Cake, really you are. You honestly think you're this great debater when the sad fact is you cannot even make up your own mind, SQQQQWWWWWAAAACCCCKKK!
Pat D-Cake Pat D-Cake faker man.
Fake an excuse as fast as you can.
Obscure it and change it and mark it with "B" (for bullsh#t)
And post in PHP for POLLYinFLA and thee.Ha ha ha at least you're good for a laugh.
Thetubeguy1954
Well, you still can't make up your mind as to about accepted audio measurements, but can't tell me what they are.Where do you suggest we go to get these measurements? "I've looked at 100's if not 1000's of specs . . . " IOW, we are to look at manufacturers specs found in advertising to find "accepted audio measurements! This is confirmed by his further statement, "If you don't know what today's accepted measurements are and which ones are typically used I suggest you look up some components online." This is amazing, tubey! But you still confuse measurements and specifications. I'm sure there are lots of measurements that don't show up in manufacturer's specifications. Reviewers do some of them though designers like Dan Banquer, Tom Danley, and John Curl seem to think they are seldom sufficient. So accepted measurements go way beyond manufacturers' specs. Of course, there is the problem of who determines what measurements are accepted as many of them are not regulated.
Now, if we want to say that a lot of manufacturers specs do not tell us much about how equipment sounds, that makes sense.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat D-Cake,I see you're still attempting to obfuscate the truth. Just because you're either incapable of understanding what I say (which happens a lot with you, but few others here) or you're unwilling to admit you understand what I'm saying to help you obscure and complicate a statement everyone else seems to easily understand. Doesn't mean I can't make up my mind as to what today's accepted audio measurements are, but can't tell you what they are. In fact Pat D-Cake it's a blatant untruth for you to claim this! This is just one more lame attempt for you to get me to do your homework for you. Sorry lazy you'll have to get of your ass and do something for yourself for a change.
===================================================================
I'll readily grant you I cannot tell you specifically what all of today's accepted measurements are or how they are performed, but that's not a requirement of understanding the specifications they provide! Just like a child doesn't need to know how a scale works to read and understand their weight is X amount of pounds. So too, I cannot tell you how THD is obtained, but just like the child I don't need to know how the specification is obtained. I can read and understand the final fiqure and I know full well that I hear no difference between .000001% or .1%. Hence detect no correlation with how THD effects what I am hearing. Here's what I can tell you about the specifications the measurements provided. These specifications, and the measurements that provided them are virtually useless in describing what I/we hear. Thus logically speaking if the specifications are useless in describing what I/we hear, the measurements that provide those specifications are equally useless in describing what I/we hear. Hence my statement today's accepted audio measurements simply don't correlate with what we hear! Of course that doesn't mean the measurements themselves are useless. It simply means their specifications provide nothing that directly correlates with what we hear! If you feel differently Pat D-Cake please explain how these specifications will reveal how closely this amp will make a violin, guitar, saxophone or piano sound like it would live and unamplified.1) THD: < 0.15 % at full power
2) IM distortion: balanced 16 V rms < 0.03 %
3) Slew rate: > 130 V/µsecond
4) Dynamic headroom: > 1.8 dB
5) Input sensitivity: 1 V for 28.28 V, THX Reference Level
6) Input impedance: 100 k Ω
7) S/N ratio: > 120 dB, IHF A-weighted, bias set to high
8) Damping factor: > 1200 at 20 Hz===================================================================
Where do you suggest we go to get these measurements? This is confirmed by his further statement, "If you don't know what today's accepted measurements are and which ones are typically used I suggest you look up some components online." This is amazing, tubey! But you still confuse measurements and specifications.Pat D-Cake you amaze me at times! You try to act like this intelligent, well informed person but then reveal your ignorance in the questions you ask and the statements you make. I've told you more than once and illustrated the point that I understand the difference between measurements and specifications! Yet once again you imply I don't know the difference between measurements and the specifications they provide. This is typical Pat D-Cake playing of games and attempting to the muddy the waters and make yourself look more intelligent than you actually are. Now just so you know I understand the difference a measurement is the estimation of a quantity such as distortion, length, excursion, temperature, or time. Measurements find the ratio of some quantity to a standard quantity of the same type, thus a measurement of the height of a speaker is the ratio of the physical height of a speaker to standard length, such as a standard meter. Measurements are usually given in terms of a real number times a unit of measurement, for example 3.35 meters. In this case the 3.35 meters is the specification the measurement provided. Have I now explained this sufficiently enough for you Pat D-Cake? For some reason that I don't understand you seem to believe that I need a deep understanding of the measuring process itself. But I don't, what I need to see is the specifications those measurements provided!
===================================================================
I'm absolutely 100% postive there are many measurements that don't show up in manufacturer's specifications. But if they are unavailable to me as a consumer, these measurements and the specifications they also provide are useless to me. Besides "IF" one of these unrevealed measurements somehow correlated closely with what we hear and would reveal how closely an amp, preamp etc would make a violin, guitar, saxophone or piano sound like it would live and unamplified, you cannot possibly believe that a designer and manufacturer like Tom Danley, Roger Russell or John Curl wouldn't include the specifications that measurement provided with their other specifications can you?
===============================================================
So the fact that it's possible that today's accepted measurements go way beyond manufacturers' specs. is of little relevance to this discussion. We can ONLY work with the specifications of measurements that manufacturers choose to reveal or provide to us. That's all we have and nothing more! Thus based on those measurements that are typically used and specifications they provide us as provided by the manufacturers, I'll repeat today's accepted measurements (and the specifications they provide) don't correlate with what we hear! If rewording that to: "Manufacturers specs do not correlate with how equipment sounds" makes more sense to you, that's OK with me. But you're basically just restating what I said with different words. It's not a different concept. It's just another lame Pat D-Cake attempt to appear to be right at all costs once again...Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
Well, I am not very good at mind reading. So now you want to change "accepted audio measurements" into the ones you have easy access. I'm not trying to be too hard on you, but when you start stating seriously the accepted measurements do not correlate with the sound, I want more precision. Why do I have to work so hard to get it out of you?TG
"If rewording that to: "Manufacturers specs do not correlate with how equipment sounds" makes more sense to you, that's OK with me. But you're basically just restating what I said with different words. It's not a different concept."Sorry, but that's simply and obviously incorrect. The logical comprehension and extension are quite different. You do not quantify manufacturer's specs with "some," and you also seem to expect a partial set of specs would indicate the overall performance of the amp. And of course, as Analog Scott and I have both pointed out, an amp does not make any sound (other than things like power supply hum or mechanical blows on it) except in a system. And the sound of a decent system is mostly due to the program material, the speakers, and the speaker set up in the room.
I don't see anything in the amplifier specs you provided that would indicate it would sound much different from lots of other amps, although it is very low noise--kind of looks like one of Dan's amps, but I don't have time to look it up. The damping factor indicates a low output impedance. However, I would definitely want to see the power specifications and the frequency response specifications. I would also like to see some actual measurements such as those made by BHK Labs or JA at Stereophile because from what is given, I have no idea whether the amp would be suitable for me or not.
Of course, this also shows that we often do in fact have access to measurements beyond manufacturer's specs, as some reviewers supply them. And especially, speaker reviewers' measurements can be quite helpful in differentiating speakers.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
> The trouble is that most rationalists accept that as well. jj said the same thing, for example. So there is nothing peculiar to subjectivists here." <Is he saying people who believe without listening are "rationalists"? That's a rather curious designation. I would call those folks "ignorantists". Different strokes, I guess.
Hi Kerr,You had it right before, "rational subjectivists" show a healthy skepticism for a lot of the tweakier items out there but that trust in their ears and "rational objectivists" believe in measurements but also know that science cannot explain everything.
Pat D is just doing his best to obfuscate the topic. Even when I wrote from a neutral postion labeling both some objectivists & some subjectivists as irrational, he found something to disagree with! But then again that's all Pat D ever does anyway, disagree with anything a subjectivist says.
TG54
"that's all Pat D ever does anyway, disagree with anything a subjectivist says."Of course, you're position is contradictory. You've tried to maintain that I have no fixed opinions, and if that were true, I could never be able to identify subjectivists so as to be able to controvert them. Well, as Aristotle pointed out, once you introduce a contradiction into your reasoning, you can "prove" anything at all, contradictories included.
As well, it cannot possibly be ""all that I "ever" do, as I have to do lots of other things just to survive. I eat, sleep, shower, shop, bank, talk to my wife, clean, wash dishes, listen to music, rehearse and perform music, do vocal exercises, and lots of other things.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
TG1954 - "that's all Pat D ever does anyway, disagree with anything a subjectivist says."Pat D-Cake - It cannot possibly be ""all that I "ever" do, as I have to do lots of other things just to survive. I eat, sleep, shower, shop, bank, talk to my wife, clean, wash dishes, listen to music, rehearse and perform music, do vocal exercises, and lots of other things.
TG1954 - Ok I'll reword this one to: that's all Pat D-Cake ever does on PHP anyway, disagree with anything a subjectivist says. I keep forgetting that you need the obvious explained to you, I'm sorry Pat D-Cake I'll try to dumb down what I say so you'll comprehend it better in the future. I guess I gave you credit for more than the little intelligence you typically display here.
1) ANY component whos sound I speak about is always when used in a system. I realize that NO audio component works by itself, apparently you need that explained to you.
2) Specifications are USUALLY a result of a measurement being taken when speaking about audio specifications. But because there are different types of specifications and you need the obvious explained over & over I say USUALLY because there's also some others like:
a) Maintenance Specifications.
b) Materials Specifications.
c) Operation Specifications.
d) Design Specifications.3) When I speak about something you, Pat D-Cake I'm refering to when you're here on PHP. I personally don't give a horses pa-toot what you do or say elsewhere in your life. In fact the thought of you showering was a lot more info than I needed or cared to hear about.
Hopefully you won't require the blatantly obvious to be explained to you many more times....
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
TG54
"1) ANY component whos sound I speak about is always when used in a system. I realize that NO audio component works by itself, apparently you need that explained to you."No, I don't need that explained to me. Why don't you modify your language to take account of that? Instead, you claim your tube amplifier is "world class" and concretely you take a suggestion it might not work so well with some other speakers as a dastardly slur upon it.
YOu even want to define the amplifier's accuracy by how well it sounds in your system! This deprives the concept of accuracy of any definite meaning, since your tube amp may not so good with other speakers.
TG54
"2) Specifications are USUALLY a result of a measurement being taken when speaking about audio specifications."They may or may not be related to measurements. In any case, they are not the same as measurements as a spec is a performance standard. For example, a distortion spec of .15% states that the distortion under specified conditions will not exceed that, and those conditions are regulated for US advertising. It is quite possible the amp will do better than that. As well, in the US, if an amplifier is claimed to be able to put out X watts continuous power over a frequency range of A-B into a load impedence of Y then it is supposed to be able to do that. Unlike THD, this can often be of some use.
Now, speaker specs often seem not to be based on measurements. A speaker may be said to have a frequency response extending to, say, 30 Hz, but there is no guarantee it will actually have any useful response that low. Now, there are some manufacturers whose LF extension specs seem honest as they come out close to what the measurements done by the NRC (Soundstage), Stereophile, or AIG indicate, but others do not. Sensitivity is another spec--but there is really no standard way of measuring it to which they must adhere, and as well, some manufacturers grossly exaggerate it. Adn unless it is extremely tight, an FR spec really doesn't indicate much about how a speaker will sound.
On the other hand, speaker measurents done by the NRC, Stereophile, and AIG can be quite useful. Frequency response and dispersion measurements can be quite helpful for those who have some idea what they like or don't like.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
TG1954 - ANY component whos sound I speak about is always when used in a system. I realize that NO audio component works by itself, apparently you need that explained to you.Pat D-Cake - No, I don't need that explained to me. Why don't you modify your language to take account of that? Instead, you claim your tube amplifier is "world class" and concretely you take a suggestion it might not work so well with some other speakers as a dastardly slur upon it.
TG1954 - Apparently you DO need that explained to you Pat D-Cake. Otherwise you wouldn't require modifing my language to take account of that, when it's just an obvious fact! You're 100% correct that I know that my amp is "WORLD-CLASS". However your comment that I concretely take the suggestion that it might not work so well with some other speakers as a dastardly slur upon it, is something you simply made up and cannot provide any evidence I've ever said anything like that. Even if it wasn't an SET that fact that it only has 40W/ch would surely reveal to anyone with a real knowledge about audio equipment that the Mastersound will not work with all speakers. Surely you realize Pat D-Cake that any system is only as good as it weakest link. The Mastersound used with the right ancillary components is a "WORLD-CLASS" amp. A QSC on the other hand no matter how good the other components are would never sound like a "WORLD-CLASS" amp! So even though both are used in a system, one can determine how good the individual components are, or haven't you developed that skill as of yet?
==================================================================
Pat D-Cake - You even want to define the amplifier's accuracy by how well it sounds in your system! This deprives the concept of accuracy of any definite meaning, since your tube amp may not so good with other speakers.TG1954 - Once you learn how to deteremine the sound of individual components in the confines of a system you'll see the problem with your statement.
===================================================================
TG1954 - Specifications are USUALLY a result of a measurement being taken when speaking about audio specifications."Pat D-Cake They may or may not be related to measurements. In any case, they are not the same as measurements as a spec is a performance standard. For example, a distortion spec of .15% states that the distortion under specified conditions will not exceed that, and those conditions are regulated for US advertising. It is quite possible the amp will do better than that. As well, in the US, if an amplifier is claimed to be able to put out X watts continuous power over a frequency range of A-B into a load impedence of Y then it is supposed to be able to do that. Unlike THD, this can often be of some use.
TG1954 - I addressed this yesterday Pat D-Cake, I mentioned there are other types of specs, granted I didn't list everyone, but I proved I knew others existed. I've already told you that specifications are USUALLY (that means not always -- so I don't see why you're pointing out the obvious) a result of a measurement being taken when speaking about audio specifications. But because there are different types of specifications and you need the obvious explained over & over I say USUALLY because there's also some others like:
a) Maintenance Specifications.
b) Materials Specifications.
c) Operation Specifications.
d) Design Specifications.If we take your example of: a distortion spec of .15% states that the distortion under specified conditions will not exceed that, while true can also be viewed as a measurement spec as well. Remember I stated: "a measurement is the estimation of a quantity such as distortion, length, excursion, temperature, time etc. Measurements find the ratio of some quantity to a standard quantity of the same type..." thus in your example a measurement of the distortion of an amplifier is the ratio of the actual distortion of the amplifier to a standard of 0% distortion. Measurements are usually given in terms of a real number times a unit of measurement, for example .15%. In this case the .15% distortion is the specification the measurement provided. So it can be both a measurement spec and a performance spec.
This is just you once again attempting to shift the topic from what it is to what you want it to be in an effort to appear correct at all costs!
===================================================================
Pat D-Cake - Now, speaker specs often seem not to be based on measurements. A speaker may be said to have a frequency response extending to, say, 30 Hz, but there is no guarantee it will actually have any useful response that low. Now, there are some manufacturers whose LF extension specs seem honest as they come out close to what the measurements done by the NRC (Soundstage), Stereophile, or AIG indicate, but others do not. Sensitivity is another spec--but there is really no standard way of measuring it to which they must adhere, and as well, some manufacturers grossly exaggerate it. Adn unless it is extremely tight, an FR spec really doesn't indicate much about how a speaker will sound.TG1954 - As usual we disagree. Here's just one spec of a speaker...
Frequency Response: 15-35 kHz, +/- 2 dB, 13 Hz-100 kHz -6 dB, (+/- 1dB at mid band). To me this is a measurement Pat D-Cake. It measures against DC to whatever upper limit one choices to use. Just because there's no standard accepted measurement for this doesn't mean it isn't a measurement. This also serves to fortify my postion that today's ACCEPTED measurements don't correlate with what we hear, because there is no accpted standard in many cases, this cases the measurements and the specification they provide to be useless to us! Personally I think speakers should be measured against 0 - 100Khz. It also measures the deviation from flat frequency response +/- 2 dB when 15-35Khz is the standard and -6 dB when 13-100Khz is the standard. I agree with you that a (not an) FR spec really doesn't indicate much about how a speaker will sound. But that just further illuminates my statement as being true.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
Sorry, the specification is a standard, not a measurement. Someone might formulate a specification with a knowledge of measurements that were done, or it might just be advertising copy. It is itself a standard. Now, if someone measures the speaker, they could see whether it meets or exceeds the specification or not.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/specification
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat D-Cake,I can see we've reached the point where you'll continue on desperately needing to be correct and striving to have the last word. When you get like this there's no possible way to have an intelligent conversation with you. You're next move after this is to start continually twisting the truth and then outright ly#*@. So I'm going to stop wasting my time on this subject with you. As I've stated numerous times you have absolutely NOTHING of value to offer me. So go ahead, have the last word, thump your chest like an ape and feel like you've won the arguement, but at the very least don't lie to yourself. Simply realize you've won nothing, but have succeeded in wearing me down. It's a waste of my time talking with you any further and I have better things to do than repeat the same thing over & over again....
Pat D-Cake, Pat D-Cake faker man,
Create an excuse as fast as you can.
Roll it, pat it, mark it with a B (for Bullsh!t)
Post on PHP for Polly and thee.Bye, bye either make like nature & hide or go waste someone else's time.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
AS
"Multichannel is just stereo with more channels. It essentially works the same way. It still is an attempt at creating an aural illusion and it is still limited to a singular perspective.So the goal remains the same, unless it is being missused of course."Well, not according to Wes Philips:
"It didn't matter how much we squirmed or moved our heads, the sound was spread evenly across the front of the room, and the spatial cues were coming not from behind us, but from all around us. And, it didn't seem to matter where we were sitting, the soundstage remain centered and huge, even well away from the sweet spot."
http://www.onhifi.com/features/20010615.htm
One could certainly say that this is creating an "aural illusion" but then mono does that, too. I've heard some pretty remarkable stereo: for example, the Ethera Vitae speakers project a good stereo image even if you stand further left or right than the speakers are--I wouldn't say it didn't change, though. But Wes Philips description does not read like "stereo with more channels," and the hardware and software required doesn't sound like it, either. No, it doesn't seem to work just like stereo.
You also don't seem to have shown why any of the goals KlausR mentioned are meaningless, either, as it would seem one could work towards them.
Besides, if I put on Eric Salzman's "The Nude Paper Sermon" (Nonesuch H-71231), "the record is not a reproduction of anything at all but is the work itself. Like a print or film it has been created to be duplicated in multiple copies." (From the record jacket).
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
> > AS
"Multichannel is just stereo with more channels. It essentially works the same way. It still is an attempt at creating an aural illusion and it is still limited to a singular perspective.So the goal remains the same, unless it is being missused of course."> Well, not according to Wes Philips:
"It didn't matter how much we squirmed or moved our heads, the sound was spread evenly across the front of the room, and the spatial cues were coming not from behind us, but from all around us. And, it didn't seem to matter where we were sitting, the soundstage remain centered and huge, even well away from the sweet spot."
http://www.onhifi.com/features/20010615.htm
Just because the sweet spot is wide doesn't mean the basic design goals are totally different from conventional multi-channel/stereo. It's still an aural illusion and it is still from a single perspective.
> One could certainly say that this is creating an "aural illusion" but then mono does that, too. I've heard some pretty remarkable stereo: for example, the Ethera Vitae speakers project a good stereo image even if you stand further left or right than the speakers are--I wouldn't say it didn't change, though. But Wes Philips description does not read like "stereo with more channels," and the hardware and software required doesn't sound like it, either. No, it doesn't seem to work just like stereo.
that is your opinion and you are entitled to it even though you are plainly wrong.
> You also don't seem to have shown why any of the goals KlausR mentioned are meaningless, either, as it would seem one could work towards them.
Sure I did. I suggest you reread my post on the matter.
> "Besides, if I put on Eric Salzman's "The Nude Paper Sermon" (Nonesuch H-71231), "the record is not a reproduction of anything at all but is the work itself. Like a print or film it has been created to be duplicated in multiple copies." (From the record jacket)."
There are any number of studio recordings that make no attempt to create an illusion of an original *live acoustic* event in playback. what is your point?
AS
"There are any number of studio recordings that make no attempt to create an illusion of an original *live acoustic* event in playback. what is your point?"I'll deal with this first. When one plays a recording such as Salzman's Nude Paper Sermon, there is, as you say, "no attempt to create an illusion of an original *live acoustic* event in playback." That is part of the point, as each time I or someone else plays The Nude Paper Sermon, it is not an illusion of anything. There is no original performance to reproduce. I should have thought you would have noticed that this is not compatible with your own statement of the goal of recording and playback, which I will quote more fully.
AS
"It is not a meaningful goal since stereo or even multi-channel recording and playback are not designed to do that. Again they are designed to create an "illusion" of an original event "from a single perspective."If I understand Salzman's conception correctly, when I play The Nude Paper Sermon that is a performance of the work--the only type of performance possible for it. So you own conception of the goal of stereo recording and playback is only partially applicable since it doesn't cover all the cases.
You still try to contend that the system jj developed at AT & T is basiclly just stereo.
AS
"Just because the sweet spot is wide doesn't mean the basic design goals are totally different from conventional multi-channel/stereo. It's still an aural illusion and it is still from a single perspective."That covers some cases but not all, by any means.
You are attempting to define stereo and multi-channel simply by the goal to be attained--goals which are quite obviously different, BTW, even though you try to cover them under the common terms of "creating an aural illusion," since stereo is more limited in what it can accomplish than is multi-channel. You admit as much by saying they are "not totally different," but that is also to adimit that they are partially different. But if you define solely by using a generalized goal, then a bicycle, automobile, helicopter, fixed wing aircraft, and rocket ship are basically the same because they can move people from one place to another!
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: