highfihoney said:
accoustic analyzer's are used in audio to measure responses & they do just that,i am not a engineer or in the feild but that does not mean im not able to read the manual of such a device & use it properely.
highfihoney said:
Unfortunately there is more to this than just reading such a manual, much more. Chris gave you a sufficient response on the flaws of using these acoustic tests for purposes beyond their capability. No need to repeat them.
your plugging dbt test's as if they are all there is but would the test subject's used be able to tell the difference in a pair of true full range speaker's against a pair of bose 901 speaker's,most likely not,
You should read more than manuals. Research the Canadian Research Council and their 30 years of speaker research under DBT listening protocols. May want to read some of Dr Floyd Toole's AES papers from AES.org. It will cost you but good education has a cost. DBt is a 'gold standard' for a very good reason.
dbt testing rely's on the subject's memory & weather or not it's the standard it's the most flawed way to test anything.
That is your opinion. You are dismissing all of science. You are embarrassing yourself.
your cable analogy comparing amp's with cable's wont hold water,were not talking about minute differences that are so low they cant be heard were talking about measureable & recordable responses
Oh, please. Cable differences are measurable and recordable differences.
"visual difference's are meaningless to audible difference's without other info stated above"
that's an untrue statement,when you can take visual image's that are saved within a device & have 2 seperate setting's now you can switch back & forth between the 2 seperate setting's derived directly from both amplifier's
Visible differences are not an indication of audible differences. Depends on magnitude and accuracy of the measurements. Your protocol is flawed, grossly, as was pointed out, hence meaningless.
hear the difference's between the seperate setting's on a single amplifier it's hard to deny that there is merit to it.
Not at all, your listening protocol is wanting as your measuring protocol, hence your whole experiment is unreliable.
i have tried this type of testing & seen & heard the result's with my own eye's
No doubt you have. But, repeating the same flawed protocol will yield unreliable results time after time.
ear's,before you condem accoustic testing as unreliable you should see for yourself.
Nothing to see. It is flawed.
i ask you the same question that i posed above,if this test was performed in an anechoic chamber with all varible's remaining constant how can it be flawed?
You are still measuring speaker responses, not amp property. You don't measure amp distortion through a speaker with an spl meter not even in an anechoic chamber You will get speaker distortion. SPL meters just cannot measure into low enough regions. Same for frequency response, etc. There is really nothing further to discuss on this.
hello & yes i am having fun,i will skip the cable rhetoric before we end up talking about cryo & other voodoo crap.
i have never at any point talked about measuring distortion of any kind with an accoustic measurement yet this keep's comming up & i feel that it has nothing to do with the question posed to me by cris that started this discussion.
the dbt testing that is the gold standard as you point out has nothing at all to do with how any gear amplifier or other wise will perform in my listening enviroment, it will only show result's from other gear in another enviroment with different acoustic's in the room being used & different load's on the amplifier due to different speaker's.
"your still measuring speaker response"
that is exactly right,isnt the end result of amplification a speaker response,that's exactly what it's supposed to show,the different responses from the same speaker when being driven by different amplification,the speaker's are the constant in all of this & the one thing that is not subject to human error,if the difference's being measured are the response from the speaker which is being sent direct from the amplifier with nothing in between then there is no reason to not believe what is being shown on the accoustic display.
to say that a dbt test will dis prove that any difference can be heard in different type's of amplification is wrong because all amp's are not the same.
we started out comparing tube amp's with solid state amp's so i'll go further on that comparison.
take the two 100 watt amp's for comparison with one being tube & the other solid state,both amp's have a totaly different design with totally different set of spec's but the wattage's are the same,now push both of these amp's to the top of their power range,a difference in response will be heard for no other reason than the tube amp's design with an inherintly low damping factor which in turn will affect the amplifier's ability to control the bass.
i used damping factor as a reference because there are very few(if any)tube amp's on the market with any where near the published damping factor's of any quality solid state amp in fact most tube amp's have crazy low damping factors of well under 50 some even as low as 10,now damping factor being part of what will determine bass response how can these difference's not be heard when both amplifier's are being driven to maximum rated wattage's,the more power draw on the tube amp's transformer the more noticable the poor bass response will be.
along with all the dbt article's on the internet that you recomended that i read there is also an abundance of information on the web about different damping factor's & how they are directly related to bass control .
btw,there was no call for the "make a fool of yourself" comment as i have said nothing to you to warrant such a slander
have a good evening
