My Ultra tests

[Steve Woodhouse]

in this case I imagine your distress to discover that in its current state the ultra does not even make a -111db in sinad at 1k when the "plus" approaches a -116db.....

Firstly, which professional and trusted reviewer have you got that from?

Secondly, you’ve fallen back into the trap. Just because something is measurable doesn’t mean it’s audible.

The limits of human hearing show that the absolute limit of detecting a difference is SINAD is 116dB. So at 111dB that might be just about theoretically audible in perfect circumstances. In real-world listening however, it’s almost certainly inaudible.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

Like Boeing did? To stay in one of your favorite reasons

View attachment 10990

An absolutely ridiculous parallel.

 

[canard]

When a professional objectively measures the Ultra, that’ll tell you all you need to know.

who?

Firstly, which professional and trusted reviewer have you got that from?

Secondly, you’ve fallen back into the trap. Just because something is measurable doesn’t mean it’s audible.

The limits of human hearing show that the absolute limit of detecting a difference is SINAD is 116dB. So at 111dB that might be just about theoretically audible in perfect circumstances. In real-world listening however, it’s almost certainly inaudible.

you don't know what I think.. ( , and your answer was so agreed...more of a "trap" for you... ;-) )
just that the actors of what you point out concerning the "audible not audible" approach, are the same ones who classify by -0.1db the machines on a sinad at 1k... just find it ironic...



ps do you think you hear the piano like a pro pianist who started at 4 years old? smell like a "perfumer's nose"? a note not very accurate from a musician in the middle of an orchestra like pro musicians do?
why are there many more absolute pitches among young trained Chinese than among young Anglo-Saxons etc etc...
the field that concerns us is the recent developments of cognitive sciences.. invites you to look into the studies that are increasingly coming to us thanks to very high performance irm like the French one "iseult" from the CEA etc
vast subject...
""cultural""

ps remember, you should have pointed me to the aes literature concerning these audibility subjects..?? but never... ;-)

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

who?

you don't know what I think..just that the actors of what you point out concerning the "audible not audible" approach, are the same ones who classify by -0.1db the machines on a sinad at 1k... just find it ironic...



ps do you think you hear the piano like a pro pianist who started at 4 years old? smell like a "perfumer's nose"? a note not very accurate from a musician in the middle of an orchestra like pro musicians do?
why are there many more absolute pitches among young trained Chinese than among young Anglo-Saxons etc etc...
the field that concerns us is the sciences and recent developments of cognitive sciences.. invites you to look into the studies that are increasingly coming to us thanks to very high performance irm like the French one from the CEA etc
vast subject...
""cultural""

ps you should have pointed me to the aes literature concerning these audibility subjects..?? ;-)

It’s very difficult to read some posts and hold back from pointing out that they’re utter bilge which make no sense in any language.

I appreciate the humour value, though.

 

[canard]

It’s very difficult to read some posts and hold back from pointing out that they’re utter bilge which make no sense in any language.

I appreciate the humour value, though.

but hey..it's not me who's the subject.... ;-)

sorry onlyoneme for your thread...
(but on the one hand your results, while they are always found relevant, are now "subject to caution", that of a "pro" (?), but on the other hand even if they had to be fair, even if a problem, "not serious, quite sufficient even if less good than a "plus"... I like it... ;-) )

 

[Yoku-San]

And here comes the next discussion circle.

 

[Smartplug]

but hey..it's not me who's the subject.... ;-)

sorry onlyoneme for your thread...
(but on the one hand your results, while they are always found relevant, are now "subject to caution", that of a "pro" (?), but on the other hand even if they had to be fair, even if a problem, "not serious, quite sufficient even if less good than a "plus"... I like it... ;-) )

Look dream boy, you been arguing with Steve knowing he will throw you on trench as soon you push what you’re saying. Steve is right it measure all the way to stratosphere but is it audible that you can hear? Can you hear difference between 120db vs 130db sinad. Once you go over the threshold of human hearing it won’t be relevant unless you have bat ear. They just look good on paper.

 

[canard]

but I don't care about the 1k sinad, I have enough ears, which will be the end result anyway... you are really wrong about me.... ;-)

 

[Smartplug]

The next one to adore? Remember, the first "legend" kicked you already

To this day I have great respect on him and you know who you are. As for dream boy, I doubt if he would land his punch without a missed.

 

[Smartplug]

Let’s get back to the topic guys. Thank you!

 

[Burnside]

Like Boeing did? To stay in one of your favorite reasons

View attachment 10990

Is that the transparent bits?

 

[Burnside]

And here comes the next discussion circle.

And the same dramatis personae…

 

[Smartplug]

You made me very happy seeing you here I thought you were gone. You know who you are.

 

[Smartplug]

Wiim mention they will release a beta for independent peq for rc this week? Anyone onboard?

 

[bernard23]

Opinions are subjective by nature. And there is no consensus on interpreting the data, especially in terms of the audibility. One can say that high sinad makes the dut audibly transparent, another will say no way.
My tests are not ASR reviews. They are the flow of experiences I got during looking for the flaws.

That's fine with me, and I recognised that. My issue isn't with your data, it's how others are interpreting it, which is the classic "problem" at ASR.

 

[bernard23]

A measurement, if carried out seriously and professionally will objectively describe a certain characteristic of the device under test (DUT) under defined and fully specified preconditions. It is valid if it can be reproduced by others under the same boundary conditions. Nowadays, many very reliable measurements can be taken by hobbyist with limited, but still noteworthy effort.

The problem is not that music was different from measuring signals in some mysterious way. The problem is not with measurements not telling the truth.

The problems (and there are many) are (mostly) still the same as they used to be from the early days of electroacoustics.

• Know and understand the influence of your boundary conditions. What effect do deviations have on the result?
• Know and understand what linearity means and don't fall for conclusions or interpretations that are only valid for linear systems when this linearity hasn't been proven, yet.
• Know and understand that one single number characteristic of a device will never describe its behaviour completely.
• Know and understand that improvements regarding one characteristic might negatively influence another one and it might not be clear at all which one is more meaningful to the result.

I could probably go on for hours. And fhi is where all the myths kick in: When single measurements seem to not align with what somebody likes or doesn't like to hear.

In the end for us as consumers, it makes little sense to buy a device you know you don't like how it sounds (unless you have that nagging fear in a far away corner of your brain that you might simply be wrong). But it also makes no sense to deliberately buy stuff with known bad measurements and try to find "synergies" between technically bad components.

It's all about your uncertainty budget. If you can't calculate that, then no point in continuing. Otherwise yes.
Taguchi, Deming, Ishikawa et al have been here a long time ago, it's not new.

 

[mlsstl]

why are there many more absolute pitches among young trained Chinese than among young Anglo-Saxons etc etc..

Somewhat off topic, but a few years ago I read the book "Musicophilia" by Dr. Oliver Sachs. He explained the issue with more Chinese musicians having perfect pitch than westerners was due to the fact that Mandarin Chinese, Vietnamese and some other languages are "tonal" meaning that the pitch at which words are spoken is important in determining the meaning of words. English, French, German and most other languages are atonal -- pitch doesn't matter in determining what a word means. This is combined with an area of the brain in newborns that is for determining pitch. If the infant starts learning language before learning music, that spot in the brain is taken over by the language function and the ability to have perfect pitch is permanently forfeited. Learning a tonal language as an infant preserves this function in the brain.

I forget the percentages in the book, but this was discovered when Julliard and other music schools started accepting more foreign students. Perfect pitch in western students was present in maybe 10% or 15% of students, but exceeded perhaps 70% of Chinese students.

The interesting thing is that perfect pitch has no relationship to the quality of one's music. It's just the audible equivalent of knowing which color you're looking at.

With that out of the way, you all can go back to your squabble.

 

[Smartplug]

I like a review with combination of objective and subjective. Erin would say an example the sound like V shape then he back up his subjective why it was V shape via measurements. If you can hear it, you can measure it.

 

[canard]

Somewhat off topic, but a few years ago I read the book "Musicophilia" by Dr. Oliver Sachs. He explained the issue with more Chinese musicians having perfect pitch than westerners was due to the fact that Mandarin Chinese, Vietnamese and some other languages are "tonal" meaning that the pitch at which words are spoken is important in determining the meaning of words. English, French, German and most other languages are atonal -- pitch doesn't matter in determining what a word means. This is combined with an area of the brain in newborns that is for determining pitch. If the infant starts learning language before learning music, that spot in the brain is taken over by the language function and the ability to have perfect pitch is permanently forfeited. Learning a tonal language as an infant preserves this function in the brain.

I forget the percentages in the book, but this was discovered when Julliard and other music schools started accepting more foreign students. Perfect pitch in western students was present in maybe 10% or 15% of students, but exceeded perhaps 70% of Chinese students.

The interesting thing is that perfect pitch has no relationship to the quality of one's music. It's just the audible equivalent of knowing which color you're looking at.

With that out of the way, you all can go back to your squabble.

;-)

 

[bernard23]

I like a review with combination of objective and subjective. Erin would say an example the sound like V shape then he back up his subjective why it was V shape via measurements. If you can hear it, you can measure it.

And equally valid, you can measure, but can't hear it. For example, amplifier output impedance or damping factor, what does that sound like?
Let alone 96kHz or even 192kHz sampling rates.