arnyk wrote:
Exactly. The same will be true for any suite of listening tests that
avoids the traditional pitfalls of casual sighted audiophile evaluations
which are:
I intend to avoid your pitfalls, so it doesn't make sense that you have
such passion for your faith.
arnyk wrote:
Gandhi wrote:
That's often right, but I'd say that it depends on the order of
magnitude of change.
In my case I have tamed the bass from -1dB ... +6dB to a quite flat one,
+/- 1dB. It would be very hard not to hear. And it's interesting to see
it quantified.
Best Regards,
Gandhi
not often
jh901 wrote:
What are these laws of physics?
The ones you learn as part of a regular university education in
Engineering, Physics, etc.
These random guessing results do not exist though, right?
The fact that audiophiles often make purchase judgments based on random
guessing is often
Other than blocking peple, is it possible to block a subforum. I want a
'cleaner' timeline!!!
-Logitech Media Server 7.9.0 ('LMS-Repack'
(http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?103636-Test-Repo-for-LMS-7-9-0-on-Synology-DSM-5-*p=817970viewfull=1#post817970))
-Raspberry B+ (piCorePlayer),
jh901 wrote:
What are these laws of physics?
All those annoying little things like electrical current, voltage,
resistance, impedance and capacitance in wire. Ohm's Law, etc.
But I'm not trying to knock you here since it is quite clear that you
are making a very big effort to be very
jh901 wrote:
None of you can explain how the laws of physics are being violated.
That's exactly the point: one CANNOT violate the laws of physics which
is any and all properly set up and properly conducted DBTs involving
audio speaker wire always yield null results, i.e. random guessing,. The
Gandhi wrote:
In my case I have tamed the bass in my too small room from -1dB ... +6dB
to a quite flat one, +/- 1dB. It would be very hard not to notice the
improvement. And it's interesting to see it quantified.
Wow. Fantastic results Gandhi!
Likewise, although not to +/-1dB, more like
ralphpnj wrote:
1) There are two different speak wires that after careful sighted
evaluations and listening tests appear to sound different, even though
all the laws of physics clearly state that this should not be the case.
What are these laws of physics?
ralphpnj wrote:
2)
jh901 wrote:
What are these laws of physics?
'UC Irvine Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science:
Understanding the Transmission Line Theory'
(http://www.ece.uci.edu/docs/hspice/hspice_2001_2-269.html)
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
ralphpnj wrote:
But I'm not trying to knock you here since it is quite clear that you
are making a very big effort to be very accommodating and understanding.
Unfortunately I do know enough about to set up a proper DBT to be
helpful.
Noted. Appreciated.
Any progress made as to the
Archimago wrote:
Wow. Fantastic results Gandhi!
Yes, REW and BrutefirDRC are surprisingly efficient. I would never have
imagined. I would actually have paid a lot for a commercial solution to
get this result, but as I didn't know the power of DRC (and I'm also
cheap), I figured I'd try free
jh901 wrote:
I don't necessarily have an argument against the notion that DSP+DRC can
deliver good sound that is affordable to nearly everyone. I can tell
you for sure that I wouldn't anyone to believe for one second that it
takes the investment I've made in order to create a rather special
jh901 wrote:
Anyhow, Analysis Plus is HQ'd within 1.5 hours of GPWoods. Shouldn't it
be easy for you to discredit their engineers along with their claims?
After checking their website, I really can't think of how to discredit
them more than they have already done themselves.
Best Regards,
DRC is the poor man's 'room full of fluffy stuff'. If you have the time,
space and funding to build a dedicated listening room with the help of
audio engineers going bananas, I presume you don't need DRC at all. But
there might be contraints, financial or perhaps estethic. DRC can help a
lot, but
Gandhi wrote:
Another advantage is that in the process one measures and quantifies the
sound quality and usually present it in a visual way. After applying a
suitable filter you can usually also see the improvement visually. DRC
gives audible results, often substantial, but for the skeptic
Julf wrote:
And for the believer, seeing the graphs makes it even more certain that
they will hear the improvements... :)
Numbers and graphs don't actually prove any audible improvement.
That's often right, but I'd say that it depends on the order of
magnitude of change.
Best Regards,
jh901 wrote:
If there is a zero-probability of audible differences, then ABX results
will be nothing more than random guesswork.
Exactly. The same will be true for any suite of listening tests that
avoids the traditional pitfalls of casual sighted audiophile evaluations
which are:
(1)
17 matches
Mail list logo
