Home Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

RE: Geddes...

1) I would assume it was chosen specifically it's revealing nature and i think 16/44 is sufficient.

2) There is another paper that discusses the distortion in more detail (it is a theory paper).

3) No, preference is a better way IMO as it takes off some of the pressure of "do I hear" vs. "what do I hear".

4) I think the findings of THD and IMD mirror what a lot of audiophiles out there complain about. I do not think that what Geddes does with his own metric is all that valid (one data point maybe if it fails a Q test but not three). His metric suggests he is on the right track but the fact of a weak correlation means there is something missing from his model to make it more complete. Maybe Cheever's model would fair better? Apparently, Shorter's simpler model was not that effective either or maybe more would use it.

5) I found a more recent pub from a Swedish (or Danish) group that reached similar, but more difficult to understand, results

Based on the synthesis of all recent research I have read I reached the conclusions that I posted some time ago on the amp/preamp forum.

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/amp/messages/20/208108.html

I stand by my analysis until such time that I hear something or see research that falsifies what I wrote.


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  VH Audio  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
  • RE: Geddes... - morricab 11/14/1513:24:30 11/14/15 (0)

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.