Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[John Roberts {JR}]

Why would a skilled engineer look at audio as a steady state signal?

For one reason, it is far easier to hear distortion (non-linearity) on a pure tone.

JR 

[Kevin Graf]

For one reason, it is far easier to hear distortion (non-linearity) on a pure tone.
JR

I was thinking of complex circuits that test great for THD, but poorly for more demanding tests like IM and pulsed tests.

[Merlijn van Veen]

I made a statement back in the 80's and I'll try to remember it exactly, or close enough. "If there is an audio manifestation that is real*** and we can recreate it and hear it reliably, we can measure it. If we can measure it we can improve it. ***If it is just a psychoacoustic illusion, we need to study and understand that too for possible use improving the audition experience. 

I like to joke that the human ear is like a digital voltmeter with 10 digits of resolution but only 6 digits of accuracy. What you hear now, you might not hear the same minutes later (happened to me).

Over decades of designing audio equipment I have found that I can measure things on the bench that I can't hear. If I hear something I can't measure I am using the wrong measurement... Back in the day I designed some of my own test equipment to parse out phenomenon my conventional test equipment couldn't resolve.  Test equipment these days is much better, but you still need to know what to look for.. One reason I like null testing is because there is no place for differences to hide.   

JR

PS: Human listening tests are easily corrupted by uncontrolled variables...

+1


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPad met Tapatalk

[Ivan Beaver]

I like to joke that the human ear is like a digital voltmeter with 10 digits of resolution but only 6 digits of accuracy. What you hear now, you might not hear the same minutes later (happened to me).

And most people on here have proven it to themselves or had it proven to them.

How many time have you reached for a tone knob and turned it and heard the the change-YET you were on the wrong channel or the EQ was bypassed?

How many times has a musician asked for a change in their monitor and before you could touch the knob they say "OK".

Very often we "want" something to happen-therefore it does.  Even if it didn't.

[Stephen Swaffer]

It is probably more important for the human ear to be "burned in" prior to a mixing/practice session than for the cables to be.

[Tim McCulloch]

It is probably more important for the human ear to be "burned in" prior to a mixing/practice session than for the cables to be.

That's popular in Colorado, Nevada, and a few other "altered" States.

[brian maddox]

It is probably more important for the human ear to be "burned in" prior to a mixing/practice session than for the cables to be.

This.

All this talk of measuring things that i can or cannot hear amuses me.

If there is one thing that i have learned from a few years of working in this field is that human hearing is Subjective, not Objective.  It varies wildly from person to person.  It also varies wildly from moment to moment in the SAME person.

This leads to a couple of seemingly contradictory corollaries.

1.  Using human ears [even "golden" ones] as the definitive testing system for an audio device or system of devices is inherently flawed, as the testing system itself cannot produce consistent results.

2.  But....  Ultimately, no one watches music on an oscilloscope  They listen to it with human ears.  Therefore, If it sounds good it IS good, regardless of what the empirical measurement devices may indicate. 

So do i believe that you can 'burn in' cables for better audiophile results?  No, i do not.  But there are those that do.  There are those that purchase this item and hear better results from their system as a result. 

Is it confirmation bias on their part?  Probably.  But to them it sounds good and therefore it IS good.

I'm sure if i used this same device i would hear absolutely no change in the audio after it's use.  But who knows.  Maybe the one with the confirmation bias is Me....

[Steve M Smith]

How many time have you reached for a tone knob and turned it and heard the the change-YET you were on the wrong channel or the EQ was bypassed?

Too many times to admit to!

no one watches music on an oscilloscope  They listen to it with human ears.  Therefore, If it sounds good it IS good, regardless of what the empirical measurement devices may indicate.

Exactly this.


Steve.

[John Roberts {JR}]

This.

All this talk of measuring things that i can or cannot hear amuses me.

If there is one thing that i have learned from a few years of working in this field is that human hearing is Subjective, not Objective.  It varies wildly from person to person.  It also varies wildly from moment to moment in the SAME person.

This leads to a couple of seemingly contradictory corollaries.

1.  Using human ears [even "golden" ones] as the definitive testing system for an audio device or system of devices is inherently flawed, as the testing system itself cannot produce consistent results.

2.  But....  Ultimately, no one watches music on an oscilloscope  They listen to it with human ears.  Therefore, If it sounds good it IS good, regardless of what the empirical measurement devices may indicate. 

So do i believe that you can 'burn in' cables for better audiophile results?  No, i do not.  But there are those that do.  There are those that purchase this item and hear better results from their system as a result. 

Is it confirmation bias on their part?  Probably.  But to them it sounds good and therefore it IS good.

I'm sure if i used this same device i would hear absolutely no change in the audio after it's use.  But who knows.  Maybe the one with the confirmation bias is Me....

As long as it sounds good all the time, every time. 
-----
When I was designing clean paths that were supposed to be linear and colorless, I only used my ears as a final step to confirm I didn't miss something in my bench testing.

When I was designing studio efx (back in the 70s-80s) the bench test equipment was less helpful. The variability of human audition was a factor I had to work around. Effects could sound different after a coffee break (it happened to me).

At Peavey my engineering group shared lab space with guitar amp designers and their job was a mix of objective and subjective factors. I observed that the guys who were above average players were more successful amp designers. I recall one bass amp designer who couldn't play a lick and luckily (for all of us) he moved on to another company. Listening to him at work was literally painful from some distance and that was on bass. I can't imagine him let loose on lead guitar. 

JR

[brian maddox]

At Peavey my engineering group shared lab space with guitar amp designers and their job was a mix of objective and subjective factors. I observed that the guys who were above average players were more successful amp designers...

JR

Yeah, this introduces still another variable which is the interaction between physical input [i.e. playing guitar] and aural output.  A whole 'nuther beast entirely....    Which is why guitar 'tone' is perhaps the MOST subjective thing of all.

And yeah, it certainly helps if you're a good enough player to deliver a reasonably consistent input in order to quantitatively measure changes in your design...

[ProSoundWeb Community]