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 | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Epson XP 830 Ink Cartridge Problem
On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 09:16:58 -0400, Wolf K
wrote: On 2018-09-21 20:36, Eric Stevens wrote: [...] Many are still 'improperly' mastered in that the aim is to produce a pleasant sound rather than accurately reproduce the original. Such recordings do not sound good to people who know what the original really sounded like. [...] I'd say "... who think they recall what the original sounded like." Recall of audio is as flawed as recall of any other memory. We don't replay a memory, we reconstruct it. That reconstruction depends in large part on the emotional ambience (eg, social setting) of the original experience. Example: I don't think you'd want the recording to present what the concert actually sounded like to you in when you were stuck in the middle of the crowd.... While you are correct, someone who has heard a real live concert is a jump ahead of someone who has only heard recordings. Aah - "stuck in the middle of he crowd". THAT sort of concert. The sort of concert where the sound of everything (even the drums!) is filtered through public address quality amps and speakers. I'm afraid the concerts I attend are the kind where you attract dirty looks if you sneeze. A different kind of music altogether. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Ads |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Epson XP 830 Ink Cartridge Problem
On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 09:37:44 -0400, Wolf K
wrote: On 2018-09-21 23:56, Eric Stevens wrote: [...] It's [nospam] who claimed I was wrong on the basis of a double-blind test. It's [nospam] who needs to cite such a test. [...] You're arguing past each other. Even if we weren't, nospam would change his position to ensure that we were arguing past one another. See how determinedly he has changed from audible differences in DACs to double-blind tests: and now you are following him! Perception trumps actuality every time. Some of the most famous double blind tests involve wine (which nospam included in his list). It's been done many times: The average person will rate the same wine higher when it's poured from a bottle with a prestigious label than when labelled "house wine". That's why wine judges/experts are presented with wines in numbered, not labelled, glasses. Worse: What we've just heard/tasted/seen/felt/etc affects how we perceive the next sensory input. This operates both at the physiological and neurological levels. That makes comparison tests more than a little difficult. Thus, large enough objective differences affect perceptions. Small ones don't. The threshold varies with on the listener (taster/etc). That's all. As with every other complex phenomenon, there will a Gaussian distribution of the data. The data will no doubt be useful when deciding how much money to spend on, for example, a new speaker design. BTW, most sensory inputs most of the time operate well below the level of conscious awareness. Good thing too, or we would have trouble standing up. Best, -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Epson XP 830 Ink Cartridge Problem
On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 11:06:36 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: It was. CD vs vinyl. Nothing to do with DAC A vs DAC B. it doesn't matter what it is. an objective-double blind test will show whether there's a difference or not. Quite agreed, but that was not what we discussing. In almost the last of the text which you snipped before the current post, you said "not that there is an audible difference, except perhaps the $5 one ...". the $5 one might sound worse, but that's because it's cheap crap. once you get past the junk level, the differences are insignificant, if there are any at all. You continue to display your ignorance/lack of experience. nope. In other words you were arguing that double-blind tests showed that double blind tests had shown that people could not tell the difference between one DAC and another (except perhaps for the $5 one). But you have never cited double-blind tests of DACs. don't need to, but feel free to do one. It's YOU who claimed I was wrong on the basis of a double-blind test. It's YOU who needs to cite such a test. nope. *you* are making the claim that you can hear a difference. i said you might *think* you can, but you can't. Actually you said "objective double-blind tests consistently show that people do no better than chance. in other words, they're guessing" with the inference being that I could not claim to be able to hear a difference between the two DACs without the confirmation of a double-blind test. a double-blind test will confirm if you can reliably do so or not. resistance to such a test shows that you're worried that you won't be able to. Of course I won't be able to! I haven't got the ability to set one up. You are even worse off being so far away from me. objective double-blind tests consistently have shown that people do no better than chance in a variety of audio tests. I've also got a DAC in my Rega CD player. I can pipe CDs from the Rega to the Arcam DAC via an optical link. I can confirm that it is very hard to tell the difference between the Rega and the Arcam DAC but the Roland DAC is quite noticeably different. since it's the odd one out, it's defective or artificially modifying the sound, neither of which is desirable. it could even be a little of both. You seem to think that the faithful reconstruction of the original analog signal is something which can be easily done by any DAC (except, perhaps, the $5 one). There is whole industry out there which disagrees with you. that people *think* they can tell a difference for all sorts of things, but when put to the test, the fail, big time. it doesn't matter whether it's wine, audio, cameras, and more. You don't need a double-blind test to determine whether people can tell whether or not a light is on in a room. In most cases the possession of the necessary discrimination is blatantly obvious. that's an absurd comparison. Of course it's not! it is. So how do you tell whether or not the light is on in a room? what you're asking is the equivalent of being able to determining if there's music playing or there's silence. Yes. It's the extreme case but somewhere between those two extremes it gets so hard to tell the difference that a double-blind test is required. Before that point a double-blind test is not necessary. There are many cases in life for which a double-blind test is not necessary to confirm a difference. true, but in this case, it *is* necessary. Without actually having heard them you can't possibly know. a better comparison would be if someone could tell the difference between two different brands of light bulbs, both outputting the same lumens and colour temperature. Why? Do you really think that without even hearing them the output of the Roland and Arcam DACs are that similar? Dear me. do an objective double-blind test, ideally multiple times and also more than just one person. What are you trying to achieve? in the past, people do no better than chance. in other words, they're guessing. half guess right and half guess wrong. the ones who guess right might think they have better perception than the ones who guessed wrong, but it's really just a lucky guess. ADC is easy. But DACs are hard. Just ask the experts. the experts will say both are easy or hard, depending on numerous factors. Fudge. nope. there's nothing mysterious about adc or dac. You know of course from practical experience. yep, i do. and it's actually adc that's harder to avoid aliasing, but that's well understood, so not much of an obstacle. The mere fact that aliasing is a problem says that using a DAC to reconstruct the original signal is by no means straitforward. There are other problems too. See https://www.audiostream.com/content/...1-what-digital https://www.audiostream.com/content/...bits-just-bits https://www.audiostream.com/content/...n-affect-sound what a load of rubbish. i'm surprised you even linked that crap. usb packet timing, memory accesses, cache misses and tight loops have no audible effect whatso****ingever and completely irrelevant to a dac. But you can measure their affects so they are real. What is needed is double-blind tests are necessary to deteremine whether or not the affects are significant in term of the audible music. Some of this has been done and yes there are factors which adversely affect the quality of the music for some people. When you are dealing with hi-fi you are not designing for people who are tone deaf. the author just spewing random jargon, hoping to fool the stupid. DACs are by no means straight forward (unless of course you set your standards low). they're very straightforward. You set your standards low. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Epson XP 830 Ink Cartridge Problem
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: [...] It's [nospam] who claimed I was wrong on the basis of a double-blind test. It's [nospam] who needs to cite such a test. [...] You're arguing past each other. Even if we weren't, nospam would change his position to ensure that we were arguing past one another. See how determinedly he has changed from audible differences in DACs to double-blind tests: and now you are following him! i did not change a thing. objective double-blind tests are the only reliable way to determine if there actually is an audible difference in dacs or any other audio component, as well as other comparisons (e.g., wine, cameras, etc.) |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Epson XP 830 Ink Cartridge Problem
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: *you* are making the claim that you can hear a difference. i said you might *think* you can, but you can't. Actually you said "objective double-blind tests consistently show that people do no better than chance. in other words, they're guessing" with the inference being that I could not claim to be able to hear a difference between the two DACs without the confirmation of a double-blind test. yep. you *think* you can hear a difference, but if you were to do an objective double-blind test, you will find out what you think you can hear and what you actually do hear is not necessarily the same. objective double-blind tests consistently have shown that people do no better than chance in a variety of audio tests. I've also got a DAC in my Rega CD player. I can pipe CDs from the Rega to the Arcam DAC via an optical link. I can confirm that it is very hard to tell the difference between the Rega and the Arcam DAC but the Roland DAC is quite noticeably different. since it's the odd one out, it's defective or artificially modifying the sound, neither of which is desirable. it could even be a little of both. You seem to think that the faithful reconstruction of the original analog signal is something which can be easily done by any DAC (except, perhaps, the $5 one). There is whole industry out there which disagrees with you. no. what's out there is a whole industry scamming people into thinking one product sounds better than another due to specious and nonsensical claims that are anywhere from grossly misleading to flat out bull****. one example out of many, and certainly not one of the most bizarre, is 'audiophile grade' ethernet cables, which must be used in the correct direction for the best sound. only an idiot would believe that ****. https://arstechnica.com/staff/2015/0...his-10000-ethe rnet-cable-apparently-makes-sense/ "All audio cables are directional," says the product page. "Arrows are clearly marked on the connectors to ensure superior sound quality. For best results have the arrow pointing in the direction of the flow of music. For example, NAS to Router, Router to Network Player." Let¹s stop and think about this for a moment. Remember that we¹re talking about an Ethernet cable here‹not speaker wire. This cable is specifically meant by the manufacturer to be used to connect a NAS to an Ethernet switch, and then presumably you¹d use a second Diamond cable to connect the switch to your computer. So these guys are actually claiming that the direction of the cable has some meaningful impact on how your NAS-hosted music sounds. and it's actually adc that's harder to avoid aliasing, but that's well understood, so not much of an obstacle. The mere fact that aliasing is a problem says that using a DAC to reconstruct the original signal is by no means straitforward. There are other problems too. See https://www.audiostream.com/content/...1-what-digital https://www.audiostream.com/content/...e-bits-just-bi ts https://www.audiostream.com/content/...w-bit-perfect- software-can-affect-sound what a load of rubbish. i'm surprised you even linked that crap. usb packet timing, memory accesses, cache misses and tight loops have no audible effect whatso****ingever and completely irrelevant to a dac. But you can measure their affects so they are real. none that has *any* effect on audio. zero. the entire concept is beyond ridiculous. anyone claiming that is a scammer who is full of **** and trying to pull one over on people. What is needed is double-blind tests are necessary to deteremine whether or not the affects are significant in term of the audible music. in this case, no such test is needed because it's not possible for memory access or cache misses to have *any* audible effect. Some of this has been done and yes there are factors which adversely affect the quality of the music for some people. When you are dealing with hi-fi you are not designing for people who are tone deaf. there are factors that do, except that cache misses aren't one of them. the author just spewing random jargon, hoping to fool the stupid. DACs are by no means straight forward (unless of course you set your standards low). they're very straightforward. You set your standards low. nope. just a good understanding of sampling theory. |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Epson XP 830 Ink Cartridge Problem
On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 23:30:54 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: [...] It's [nospam] who claimed I was wrong on the basis of a double-blind test. It's [nospam] who needs to cite such a test. [...] You're arguing past each other. Even if we weren't, nospam would change his position to ensure that we were arguing past one another. See how determinedly he has changed from audible differences in DACs to double-blind tests: and now you are following him! i did not change a thing. No. objective double-blind tests are the only reliable way to determine if there actually is an audible difference in dacs or any other audio component, as well as other comparisons (e.g., wine, cameras, etc.) So you rely on double-blind tests (very appropriate) to tell whether or not the light is on. I doubt it. The point is there are some things which are so obvious that double-blind testing is not required. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Epson XP 830 Ink Cartridge Problem
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 01:29:00 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: *you* are making the claim that you can hear a difference. i said you might *think* you can, but you can't. Actually you said "objective double-blind tests consistently show that people do no better than chance. in other words, they're guessing" with the inference being that I could not claim to be able to hear a difference between the two DACs without the confirmation of a double-blind test. yep. you *think* you can hear a difference, but if you were to do an objective double-blind test, you will find out what you think you can hear and what you actually do hear is not necessarily the same. Aah. "necessarily". Now you qualify your insistence on the need for a double-blind test. Qite right too. objective double-blind tests consistently have shown that people do no better than chance in a variety of audio tests. I've also got a DAC in my Rega CD player. I can pipe CDs from the Rega to the Arcam DAC via an optical link. I can confirm that it is very hard to tell the difference between the Rega and the Arcam DAC but the Roland DAC is quite noticeably different. since it's the odd one out, it's defective or artificially modifying the sound, neither of which is desirable. it could even be a little of both. You seem to think that the faithful reconstruction of the original analog signal is something which can be easily done by any DAC (except, perhaps, the $5 one). There is whole industry out there which disagrees with you. no. what's out there is a whole industry scamming people into thinking one product sounds better than another due to specious and nonsensical claims that are anywhere from grossly misleading to flat out bull****. Lets leave 'better' out of it for the time being. 'Different' is what I claimed. In my case 'better' is a value judgement but different is a matter of fact. one example out of many, and certainly not one of the most bizarre, is 'audiophile grade' ethernet cables, which must be used in the correct direction for the best sound. only an idiot would believe that ****. https://arstechnica.com/staff/2015/0...his-10000-ethe rnet-cable-apparently-makes-sense/ "All audio cables are directional," says the product page. "Arrows are clearly marked on the connectors to ensure superior sound quality. For best results have the arrow pointing in the direction of the flow of music. For example, NAS to Router, Router to Network Player." Let¹s stop and think about this for a moment. Remember that we¹re talking about an Ethernet cable here‹not speaker wire. This cable is specifically meant by the manufacturer to be used to connect a NAS to an Ethernet switch, and then presumably you¹d use a second Diamond cable to connect the switch to your computer. So these guys are actually claiming that the direction of the cable has some meaningful impact on how your NAS-hosted music sounds. It's all bull**** as far as I am concerned. and it's actually adc that's harder to avoid aliasing, but that's well understood, so not much of an obstacle. The mere fact that aliasing is a problem says that using a DAC to reconstruct the original signal is by no means straitforward. There are other problems too. See https://www.audiostream.com/content/...1-what-digital https://www.audiostream.com/content/...e-bits-just-bi ts https://www.audiostream.com/content/...w-bit-perfect- software-can-affect-sound what a load of rubbish. i'm surprised you even linked that crap. usb packet timing, memory accesses, cache misses and tight loops have no audible effect whatso****ingever and completely irrelevant to a dac. But you can measure their affects so they are real. none that has *any* effect on audio. zero. the entire concept is beyond ridiculous. So you say. Listeners have clear preferences on distortion with odd numbered harmonics vs even numbered harmonics. I suppose you will try to explain that away. anyone claiming that is a scammer who is full of **** and trying to pull one over on people. What is needed is double-blind tests are necessary to deteremine whether or not the affects are significant in term of the audible music. in this case, no such test is needed because it's not possible for memory access or cache misses to have *any* audible effect. Some of this has been done and yes there are factors which adversely affect the quality of the music for some people. When you are dealing with hi-fi you are not designing for people who are tone deaf. there are factors that do, except that cache misses aren't one of them. the author just spewing random jargon, hoping to fool the stupid. DACs are by no means straight forward (unless of course you set your standards low). they're very straightforward. You set your standards low. nope. just a good understanding of sampling theory. Science says check what happens in the real world. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Epson XP 830 Ink Cartridge Problem
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: objective double-blind tests are the only reliable way to determine if there actually is an audible difference in dacs or any other audio component, as well as other comparisons (e.g., wine, cameras, etc.) So you rely on double-blind tests (very appropriate) to tell whether or not the light is on. I doubt it. no. The point is there are some things which are so obvious that double-blind testing is not required. and your example of a light being on is one of them. differences in dacs, amps, speaker cable, wine, camera lenses and much more *does* require a double-blind test. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Epson XP 830 Ink Cartridge Problem
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 10:03:05 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: objective double-blind tests are the only reliable way to determine if there actually is an audible difference in dacs or any other audio component, as well as other comparisons (e.g., wine, cameras, etc.) So you rely on double-blind tests (very appropriate) to tell whether or not the light is on. I doubt it. no. The point is there are some things which are so obvious that double-blind testing is not required. and your example of a light being on is one of them. differences in dacs, amps, speaker cable, wine, camera lenses and much more *does* require a double-blind test. You know that, do you? -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Epson XP 830 Ink Cartridge Problem
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 10:03:05 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: objective double-blind tests are the only reliable way to determine if there actually is an audible difference in dacs or any other audio component, as well as other comparisons (e.g., wine, cameras, etc.) So you rely on double-blind tests (very appropriate) to tell whether or not the light is on. I doubt it. no. The point is there are some things which are so obvious that double-blind testing is not required. and your example of a light being on is one of them. differences in dacs, amps, speaker cable, wine, camera lenses and much more *does* require a double-blind test. So you keep saying. You would need a double blind test to reliably determine whether or not it is possible to distinguish the Rega from the Arcam. But I find that only a few seconds listening will tell me that I am listening to the Roland. I also accept that you might not be able to hear the distinction. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Epson XP 830 Ink Cartridge Problem
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 14:59:10 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote: Aah - "stuck in the middle of he crowd". THAT sort of concert. The sort of concert where the sound of everything (even the drums!) is filtered through public address quality amps and speakers. I'm afraid the concerts I attend are the kind where you attract dirty looks if you sneeze. A different kind of music altogether. If a sneeze warrants a dirty look, what does lighting a joint get you? ;-) |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Epson XP 830 Ink Cartridge Problem
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: You would need a double blind test to reliably determine whether or not it is possible to distinguish the Rega from the Arcam. But I find that only a few seconds listening will tell me that I am listening to the Roland. I also accept that you might not be able to hear the distinction. as i said, it's intentionally altering the sound, something you could match with the other dacs. either that, or it's defective in some way. it's a bit like 'canon colours' and 'nikon colours'. the cameras are tuned slightly differently, but either one can be made to produce what the other does. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Epson XP 830 Ink Cartridge Problem
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: objective double-blind tests are the only reliable way to determine if there actually is an audible difference in dacs or any other audio component, as well as other comparisons (e.g., wine, cameras, etc.) So you rely on double-blind tests (very appropriate) to tell whether or not the light is on. I doubt it. no. The point is there are some things which are so obvious that double-blind testing is not required. and your example of a light being on is one of them. differences in dacs, amps, speaker cable, wine, camera lenses and much more *does* require a double-blind test. You know that, do you? yes. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Epson XP 830 Ink Cartridge Problem
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 18:38:52 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: You would need a double blind test to reliably determine whether or not it is possible to distinguish the Rega from the Arcam. But I find that only a few seconds listening will tell me that I am listening to the Roland. I also accept that you might not be able to hear the distinction. as i said, it's intentionally altering the sound, something you could match with the other dacs. either that, or it's defective in some way. it's a bit like 'canon colours' and 'nikon colours'. the cameras are tuned slightly differently, but either one can be made to produce what the other does. And it's in the subtlties of tuning and the firmware of that that the differences between DACS (and their costs) lie. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Epson XP 830 Ink Cartridge Problem
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: You would need a double blind test to reliably determine whether or not it is possible to distinguish the Rega from the Arcam. But I find that only a few seconds listening will tell me that I am listening to the Roland. I also accept that you might not be able to hear the distinction. as i said, it's intentionally altering the sound, something you could match with the other dacs. either that, or it's defective in some way. it's a bit like 'canon colours' and 'nikon colours'. the cameras are tuned slightly differently, but either one can be made to produce what the other does. And it's in the subtlties of tuning and the firmware of that that the differences between DACS (and their costs) lie. tuning = intentionally altering the sound. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|