Everything sounds the same

[Sonicularity]

I just taped a $20 bill to my DAC and it sounded fuller with more punch.  So there!

[Sonicularity]

8 minutes ago, esldude said:

I just taped a $20 bill to my DAC.  However, I used multi-modal mapping to determine the exact place to tape.  It resulted in a $400 improvement in sound.  The music now has a visceral quality that was completely missing.

 

What kind of tape did you use?

 

I recommend a good pressure sensitive adhesive with plasticizer resistance.   Unless you never listen to rock music and have no clue that there is a band called The Who, then I would suggest something with a low-surface energy material.  If it doesn't cost over $100/meter, it is crap.

[Sonicularity]

26 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

we need a way to put little arrows on top of letters

 

Right, we should be able to put vector arrows over every character, including an iotified big yus.

[Sonicularity]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

Good Idea, but it seems to me that these threads invariably take on a lifetime of their own, they wander off topic (not pointing any fingers, I'm as guilty as the next person on that account!) and it seems almost impossible to get them back on topic (until Chris shuts them down, of course). People talk about what they're passionate about, it seems and there are 4 or 5 subjects that this crew circles back to time and time again. I doin't see how we're going to stop it. Chris can't monitor every topic continually, shutting the topic down at the first incipient signs of a cable debate, or whatever raises people's passions.

 

That is what makes forums such as these entertaining to many readers.  If every topic found common ground there would be nine posts no more than a couple of pages in length with some discussion and a final agreement that all would accept.  That site would die into obscurity.

 

There are certain groups of thought consisting of people that will never completely agree with one another on certain topics, but the occasional interjection can still be valuable and perhaps even educational to either side.  I believe we can police ourselves with a few exceptions that may require more stringent enforcement.   It would be a shame to see aggressive moderation eliminate any opportunity for a critical discourse.  

[Sonicularity]

3 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

If we follow this logic to it's natural conclusion, no claims in any field of knowledge should ever be rejected because there is always the possibility that that they may be proven correct at the some point in the future.

3

 

When considering the well-known effects of bias, the most current knowledge available about hearing perception, and factor in any measurements provided, it almost seems ridiculous to discuss alternative options without exhausting every avenue and attempting to duplicate any results that indicate some difference is identifiable. 

 

If someone claims to see a ghost, and we can't immediately find a rational answer as to what was seen, we keep researching.  Some in these forums get angry and suggest that since a sensible solution is not found right away, that it proves their otherwise nonsensical explanations.  I want to learn more about it without having to pick a side and gather evidence to support it.  That is not science.

[Sonicularity]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

That's not what anyone would call statistically significant.

 

It might be if you are trying to market and sell something.

 

4 out of 5 dentists come to mind.

[Sonicularity]

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

<Car analogy alert!>

 

Yes, that's how it is with a new car which has an annoying rattle in it. The dealer can demand a statistically significant number of randomly chosen people also hear that something's not right, before he will do anything about it ...

 

 

 

No, first we have to prove that the rattle even exists.  Your second sentence, while silly,  does provide some process to identify the rattle exists before wasting time attempting to determine what is making the rattle.  I'm sure some would suggest that the rattle is happening, but mechanics have not found a way to measure what might be broken to cause the rattle.

[Sonicularity]

1 hour ago, Superdad said:

 

Really?  The odds of 4 people randomly all making the same 1-out-of-4 choice is 0.39%.  

 

Sure, .390625% if you were expecting them to pick a specific sample.  Just randomly having 4 people pick the same choice out or 4 options would be 1.5625%.  But that only suggests that something was amiss that needs further analysis because on its face it is irrational and conflicts with known science.  I would like to see the test reproduced and validated.  What other measurements were taken? 

 

This is where I say a ghost is claimed to be seen, and we have not gathered enough evidence to understand what may have been seen, yet some are jumping to a conclusion that it must be a ghost only because no other option has been uncovered yet.  I'm sorry, but I'm not purchasing ghost repellent until I am confident that ghosts exist.

 

 

[Sonicularity]

19 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

That would indeed be an irrational claim.  That wasn't what the post I responded to was saying, as far as I could tell, though of course I could be wrong.

 

We'd probably get a range of opinions here regarding whether we know everything that's important to measure. But what is your opinion regarding whether the usual specifications for electronic components (discrete or ICs) comprise all those that we know may be important?

 

I was assuming that the four different manufacturing processes of each of the capacitors were not impacting the overall sound of the final product as would be typically measured when analyzing for an audible difference.   I was referring to the idea that if only a capacitor was swapped that was within 1% tolerance, and everything else being equal, it didn't make logical sense this capacitor alone was responsible for any perceived difference with the sound.

 

Maybe everyone involved in the test prefers one of the letters used to distinguish between the different test samples and so they chose that one?   I think there was a difference in the audio that was detected, but I cannot accept, without more information, that it was simply the result of spraying something on a cap.   

[Sonicularity]

9 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

What isn't preposterous is that our ear-brains work differently than scientific instruments, so we can't be as sure as we'd like yet how a given measured sonic input will be perceived.  

 

 

We certainly cannot account for every individual's perception of a given measured sonic input, but we can verify that the sonic input measures precisely the same.   

[Sonicularity]

10 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 That's fine for an analogue input, but not so easy to measure when the input and outputs are digital, before the digital output is converted to analogue by a D to A conversion. (Signal Integrity)

The digital output may also have other crap riding along with the binary data that could influence the quality of the conversion to analogue. USB Audio is particularly susceptible to this problem.

 

Why can't we measure an analog output?  We can certainly record it, make copies of it, and send it to a myriad of devices in many formats over several different protocols.