4 ms·
My goodness. How spectacular of you to claim this area hasn't been researched! There has been massive amounts of research on the audibility of various aspects o
by JohnBooty 4y ago
My goodness. How spectacular of you to claim this area hasn't been researched! There has been massive amounts of research on the audibility of various aspects of audio reproduction. Literally tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of papers. For starters:
https://www.google.com/search?q=audibility+site%3Aaes.org https://www.google.com/search?q=audibility+site%3Aaes.org
https://www.google.com/search?q=preference+site%3Aaes.org https://www.google.com/search?q=preference+site%3Aaes.org
This discussion is over.
- AstralStorm 4y agoOh come on. I namedropped AES papers almost by name. (The response to it in particular.) And definitely by name in another post. Nobody uses that metric, because industry Does. Not. Care. It's also still an integral unvalidated metric - it has not been subjected to listening tests to evaluate the thresholds nor figure out its limitations. If I missed a paper, point it out in a less lazy way. The last one that did something was in 1984 by Edward Cherry with a funky tunable distortion generating ampliifer. Even that was not a panel evaluation. There are more or less two benchmark quality amplifiers out there (I know of, and happen to be Benchmark) done by chasing the numbers, oscilloscope traces (because metrics are insufficient), a lot of modern error correction maths (90s era) in addition to validation by ear. I gave up trying to decode their feedforward plus feedback topology in detail, it's hard and not the usual example. These cost serious money. Trades some power efficiency too. One could use one of these to evaluate any and new metrics more easily, but nobody does that.