True or false?


#1

http://sss.sagepub.com/how-is-ted-coding-the-fpgaent/34/5/783.abstract


#2
Perhaps we should scrutinize the rest of the population and see what's wrong with them! (Just kidding)

@pmotz;
I think this sums it up quite nicely!

=D>

#3

Pmotz - i will send you the article,by PM. How did you come across it?


#4
Pmotz - i will send you the article,by PM.

I am second in line, if I may :)


#5

MEEE-THREEEE!


#6

True or false? I’d have to say true to some extent, but certainly not Unequivocal.


#7
How did you come across it?

It is referenced in a very interesting and no nonsense cable debate written by a Norwegian professor in signal theory.
From Google Translate:
http://translate.google.no/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A//kollokvium.no/2013/08/12/magiske-hoyttalerkabler/

Part II:
http://translate.google.no/translate?hl=&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fkollokvium.no%2F2013%2F08%2F19%2Fmagiske-hoyttalerkabler-del-2%2F&sandbox=1



#8

Here it is - if Sage Pub wants us to take it down later on they can ask - I couldn’t see a way to send attachments via the messaging part of this board.

Attached files /FileUpload/b9/d76a9b6413cf53f839fbd31a9b22cd.pdf (283.5 KB)Â


#9

@pmotz - should be 26 pages.



The article Frode sent reminded me of an interview with George Cardas in which he discussed the problems of telephone lines and how wire works, especially with respect to the interaction of the conductor and dialectric.


#10
pmotz said: I wasn't able to see the whole thing only two pages, may be an iPad issue.

You need to first download and save the article, and then open it.



#11

I think it was fairly written and well representative of the “open ended” nature of the subject.

I enjoyed the read in spite of leaving it wearing the same clothes I wore when entering.



I love these types of papers and talks where we can stretch our minds a bit to “grok” [Heinlein] phenomena that are yet scientifically unaccredited.

This is what makes us humans…humans.

How else could the “placebo” effects work if we were not?

Pardon me while I go polish my resonator with Armarol.


#12

The article does not take a position as to whether the subjectivists or the objectivists are correct. Rather it fairly describes the dichotomy of a enthusiast pursuit grounded in science and the systemic rejection by some of that very science by elevating personal experience over knowledge.



It also nicely highlights a number of audiophile phenomena, such as achieving personal involvement with a SS CD player or amp by employing non-technical tweaks. Another is the tweaker penchant for rejecting scientific criticisms of a tweak, and yet invoking science-like explanations for how they do work.



The article nicely describes the apparent contradiction of the accurate v. musical debate. (If the absolute sound of real instruments is the goal, how could a more accurate portrayal of these same instruments be less musical? Is there a form of less accurate which is somehow more musical than accurate?)



I had forgotten the David Clark ABX experiment where those with an ABX switch could readily identify the difference between a pure and distorted signal within 45 minutes, but those with unlimited time to listen at home failed to distinguish the signals. That is, ABX increased listening acuity.







#13

Oldie but a Goodie?



"The basic cause of the difference in tube and transistor sound is the weighting of harmonic distortion components in the amplifier’s overload region."



Tubes Versus Transistors - Is There an Audible Difference?*

by Russell O. Hamm



http://www.butleraudio.com/tubesvstrans1.html


#14

Wonderful article! It is particularly fun for us recording nerds.



Once again, however, the article well illustrates the differences in sound when tubes and SS are driven into distortion, but does nothing to distinguish the sound of each when driven within their operating range. In fact, he opines there is no difference in sound when this is the case.



The graphs of individual of overloaded waveforms for various tubes, transistors and op-amps are fascinating.



I also found the graphs demonstrating that the often expressed opinion that tubes overload more gently than transistors is obviously a myth intriguing.



As with others, he concludes “it was only in the range of early overload where the amplifiers differed appreciably in sound quality.”



“It may be these inaudible harmonics in the early overload condition might very well be causing the difference in sound coloration between tubes and transistors.”







#15
Elk said: "It may be these inaudible harmonics in the early overload condition might very well be causing the difference in sound coloration between tubes and transistors."


A paradoxical statement - 'inaudible' and 'sound coloration.'

#16
David said: A paradoxical statement - 'inaudible' and 'sound coloration.'


Perhaps he could have phrased it as"inaudible but feelable"? It is starting to look like the OLDE ways of measurement will not solve these mysteries.
Could it be that our "scientific creative and measurement capabilities" [ man made of course] are less than adequate when it comes to explaining HUMAN phenomena? Do we honestly expect them to equal our own senses?

Lordy, Lordy, what a concept.


#17

I think what he meant was that they are audible, but one does not separate them out from the fundamental in subjective testing, even though they are measurable.

If they were inaudible then there would have been no basis for his three categories at the start of the article, so he can't have meant that.

I agree, Elk, that the article doesn't speak to the normal operating range, and would add that this is about microphone amps and test tones. Not that there is a problem with any of that - it just limits what inferences can be drawn about other contexts.

#18
David said: I think what he meant was that they are audible, but one does not separate them out from the fundamental in subjective testing, even though they are measurable.

Yes, and well stated.



#19

Pardon my question but it makes sense to me that the ears and other body receptors can “hear” beyond what may be categorized as audible or measurable. I still believe the human body get’s more than what our minds or machines are rated for. This could explain some of the unexplained?

Just because we did not get there yet it does not mean that “there” is not there.

Now there’s a statement. I had to read it twice myself. =))


#20

We can easily measure and detect with instruments much more than our bodies can sense: light, sound, vibration, EMF, RI, magnetic fields, sub-atomic particles.



On the other hand, we do not necessarily know what to measure, such as IM and TIM. We can readily measure both well beyond out ability to hear either. The trick is to correlate the experience with the measurement.



Typically we observe evidence first - such as a moving magnetic needle - and then look to determine what it is we noticed and how it causes the phenomenon.



Other times we make a prediction of things we cannot begin to sense, such as for sub-atomic particles or light temperature shifts in the universe, and we go looking for them.