測器材比較沒意義
我想這個就很玩了
USD 910，呵呵
我看一些較知名[我知道的兩三家]网上公司都還1199呀！要我尋价嗎？你那可直接郵購嗎？
那此AP是看看好玩也多了解一下，如沒優待總价要7000美元了。一般都是用2000元內的1000元上下最普遍，其怪今搜不到其他廠牌，我dbx一台有內建RTA想很多內建都有，其他單獨專用的就難賣了
可列印查看
測器材比較沒意義
我想這個就很玩了
USD 910，呵呵
我看一些較知名[我知道的兩三家]网上公司都還1199呀！要我尋价嗎？你那可直接郵購嗎？
那此AP是看看好玩也多了解一下，如沒優待總价要7000美元了。一般都是用2000元內的1000元上下最普遍，其怪今搜不到其他廠牌，我dbx一台有內建RTA想很多內建都有，其他單獨專用的就難賣了
工作小時費 電話費 ~~費 ~~費 要給帳戶嗎？還有本金費:D哦還有機票親自送到服務到家(dance)(rock)引用:
作者: 小葉
不敢說一定作到，明天我先找這裡開樂器行的朋友打聽下。:)
應該跟amazon買910的就ok啦
哈，andychu先買啦......
引用:
作者: 999369
哎呀呀～別鬧了～引用:
作者: 小葉
得要有方向才能知道該測啥啊～
真的沒概念，就測impulse response吧～
差異最大，既能看出器材差異，也能看出空間，
喇叭或聆聽位置一動，就差不少，
牆上加些吸音、擴散、反射物，立刻就能看出來，
喇叭一換，就差上一～～～大截，
CD player一換，也能看出phase shift，以及jitter造成的高頻衰減
只是對擴大機的鑒別力就不佳囉...除非是爛擴大機...
impulse response很容易轉成振幅與相位頻率響應、step response、能量消退圖（water fall）
看看drc後面附的圖片吧
http://drc-fir.sourceforge.net/doc/drc.html#htoc232
drc附的工具，就能產生這些圖
程序是先用log sine sweep測試/錄音，以lsconv產生impulse response，丟進Octave程式計算產生圖面
例如這張 http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QtIX994Ul0...igh+linear.png
看紅色曲線
0.1ms處可以看出高頻phase shift
0.2~0.4ms處大概是喇叭單體收不住造成的
1.5ms處是喇叭側牆反射（喇叭擺在牆角）
1.8ms處是聆聽位置背牆反射（也是幾乎貼牆）
整張圖面一堆反射，因為喇叭與聆聽位置在這瘦長空間的極端二個位置，又家徒四壁，因此反射非常複雜凌亂
幾乎差不多尺寸的另一個空間，擺法正相反，家具也多，結果就大不同
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QtIX994Ul0...R+original.png
能夠比較明確的分辨每個比較強的反射音的來由
不只，你還錄下了空間的反射音引用:
作者: 小葉
我也覺得在這種場合，電腦加麥克風會是更好的測試工具。手持測試儀是給那些可能會到沒電的地方的專業人員用的（如施工到一半的錄音室）。既然聽音響的地方一定有電，電腦就是很棒的測量工具了。如果用USB麥克風還能省下錄音介面。引用:
作者: drunkenlife
錄下空間反射音也是的
我的目的很清楚
就是儘量想辦法讓沒在現場的感受一下現場的聲音
當然還原度有多少
只有在現場的人知道了
另外一個就是研究兩次更換器材的聲音大致差異
可在麥克週圍[邊上放些]放些吸音散音[修正反射如空洞的聲]耳聽的音 錄音的音 現場AB修正，或有其他方法，滿意了才錄因麥克風拾音比耳多！多作多用就會有更多經驗 參考引用:
作者: 小葉
jitter可能會很嚴重喔...高頻會衰減不少，反倒低一些的頻率會突出來...引用:
作者: martin
更糟糕的是sampling rate也飄很多，呈現出來就是嚴重的相位飄移...
有空我再來做個同一隻DAC，不同S/PDIF source的測試比較
結果可能會很可怕喔...引用:
作者: 小葉
若試玩過錄音就知道，如果在家中錄音，播放出來之後，你會很訝異竟然周遭的環境噪音那麼多...
你身處其中卻沒注意到...反倒是聽到錄音後，回過頭來，才發現確實有...
聽音響播出的聲音也是如此...
如果要排除空間的響應，簡單的作法就是麥克風擺在喇叭前短距離，如此喇叭的效應就遠比空間大很多了，引用:
作者: 999369
不過，這不是小葉的目的吧？
在microphone旁擺吸音物，必然會產生繞射、漫射、散射，而且錄下的聲音也不是人耳實際上在該位置聽到的聲音吧？
還有個問題沒討論，microphone的指向性，該用哪一種形式的呢？
若再仔細討論下去，就要考慮人的頭部造成的效應...
那，大概就只能用假人頭錄音囉...汐止的山衛有
又，再提一次，Phonic是台灣廠商全域，公司在台北東興路，
應該不用老遠由Amazon買
我知道，平常專訪用錄音筆錄就受不了了......
太感謝drunkenlife的資訊
A DESCRIPTIVE EVALUATION METHODOLOGY FOR CONSUMER AUDIO EQUIPMENT
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...306.x/abstract
Introduction
In March of this year, I conducted a scientific investigation to assess the validity of the ABX test for audio evaluation. During the course of that investigation, I was able to obtain a better understanding of a proper methodology for audio equipment evaluation. I was encouraged to submit my findings to a scientific journal for review and publication. There were several publication options available. I chose to submit my results to the Journal of Sensory Studies (JOSS), which is the premier peer-reviewed international sensory science journal. The Journal of Sensory Studies is also the official peer-reviewed journal of the Society of Sensory Professionals. An overview of JOSS can be read here: JOSS Overview.
Journal Paper Publication Acceptance
I have received notice that my 16-page manuscript, entitled "A Descriptive Evaluation Methodology For Consumer Audio Equipment", has been accepted for publication after rigorous peer review. The abstract, evaluation methodology summary and conclusion sections are as follows (all quoted text (in blue) and figures are © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.):
Abstract
"A pilot study was conducted in order to investigate the application of descriptive analysis techniques to the evaluation of consumer audio equipment. A global seven-step methodology for the descriptive evaluation of the sound characteristics of consumer audio equipment was developed. In contrast to the commonly used forced choice discrimination methods for audio equipment evaluation, the proposed methodology enhances, rather than compromises, a subject’s sensory input. A case study employing a minimally trained subject demonstrated the applicability of sensory evaluation techniques to sound. There has been some resistance in the audio community to the adoption of sensory science evaluation methods because such methods are erroneously thought to apply only to products that affect the senses of touch, taste, smell and sight.
Evaluation Methodology Summary
"The basic framework for the seven-step descriptive evaluation method for audio equipment comprises:
1. Evaluator sense organ assessment.
2. Evaluator training.
3. Evaluator experience.
4. Proper equipment setup, speaker placement and selection of
the optimum evaluator listening location (stereo sweet spot).
5. A quiet, comfortable and “acoustically friendly” listening
room, preferably with the capability of dimming the lights.
6. Careful listening, in the stereo sweet spot with familiar,
well-recorded music.
7. “Sound stage mapping” where the location of sounds (images)
within the sound stage and the attributes of those sounds are
carefully documented."
Conclusion
"This pilot study demonstrated that the descriptive analysis method for audio equipment evaluation is a sensitive, accurate, elegant, portable and easy to learn protocol. In stark contrast to the widely used forced choice discrimination evaluation methods, the protocol proposed in this paper is administered under realistic, non-stressful conditions and it maximizes and optimizes the amount of aural and tactile information received by the subject. The case study results emphasize the need for further study in audio evaluation with a fully trained descriptive analysis panel. Formal descriptive analysis would require evaluative panel members with training in descriptive techniques, adequate hearing ability, adequate full body tactile response, an extensive memory in real musical and vocal sounds, competence in setting up a moderate to high resolution audio system in an acoustically appropriate room and competence in documenting what is heard and felt."
Sample Figures
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s...sAudConfig.jpg
Figure 1. Audio test arrangement for descriptive method for stereophonic audio evaluation. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s...SndStgBlue.jpg
Figure 3. Aerial and lateral sound stage charts for musical selection "Blue". © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s...triotest-s.jpg
Figure 4. Typical Duo-trio balanced reference (ABX) audio test arrangement. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Motivation And Major Points
What I hope to achieve by publishing this paper is more consideration from the audiophile and audio community toward the adoption of scientifically validated and appropriate audio evaluation principles. The sensory science community is eager to see more research in the application of sensory science principles to sound.
Another important consideration is the deluge of misinformation, much coming from seemingly "authoritative" and "legitimate" sources via the Internet, that new entrants into our hobby and new entrants into professional audio practice are exposed to and influenced by.
The main points of the paper are:
1. Sensory science descriptive analysis (DA) techniques are applicable to and appropriate for the evaluation of audio equipment.
2. One does not need superhuman hearing to participate in accurate descriptive analysis of audio evaluation. A minimally trained subject quickly learned to discern subtle performance differences in audio equipment.
3. Forced choice discrimination methods, such as ABX, are not appropriate for the evaluation of audio equipment.
Publication Schedule
My copyright agreement with the journal prohibits me from posting a copy of the paper on the Internet. The paper will be available, in print and electronic formats, from the journal's website.
The Journal of Sensory Studies is published six times a year (Feb., Apr., Jun., Aug., Oct., and Dec.). "A Descriptive Evaluation Methodology For Consumer Audio Equipment" is scheduled to be published in the Journal's hard copy edition in December of 2010. This could possibly be moved up or back one issue (to either October 2010 or February 2011). Well in advance of the hard copy publication, the paper will be published on the Journal's website.
Further Study
I submitted a short paper on an audio-related topic to an international journal of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) in April of this year. After rigorous peer review, the journal editor informed me that they were interested in the topic, but they considered the paper to be "incomplete". The editor provided very specific instructions for revising the paper. Basically, I was advised that I needed to provide more theoretical and quantitative discussion pertaining to the results. I will provide a full discussion of this paper at a later date.
A common criticism, by the unknowledgeable, of high performance audio products is the absence of the science behind such products appearing in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The absence of such published information is more reflective of the realities and constraints of manufacturing in a competitive marketplace rather than high performance audio products being based on snake oil, voodoo and wishful thinking. Scientists who work for audio product companies typically do not have time to go 'round and 'round with the months-long peer review process. The "validation" of their work comes from the hearing of, and purchase by, the consumer rather than from acceptance by a scientific journal. Another consideration is the fact that the science behind many commercial audio products is proprietary information. Publishing such information in a journal, (or divulging such information in a patent application) might put a company at a severe competitive disadvantage.
I have submitted two audio related papers to scientific journals. The first paper, regarding audio equipment evaluation techniques, has been approved for publication in the leading international sensory science journal. The second paper has completed the first round of review by a leading international IEEE journal and is a work in progress.
From my limited experience, I can certainly extrapolate that scientific journals could be filled to the brim with audio related papers...if audio company scientists and engineers wanted to do that.
https://www.polkaudio.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=103417
我是如用 聆聽 皇帝位的測試； 很多麥克風加海棉套~~~~ 保護？好看？失真？都是有很多未知的方式，是舉例引用:
作者: drunkenlife
學無止境 用無止境 討論無止境 紙上談兵更~~~
馬上..就要有實際行動了!!8)引用:
作者: 999369
好壞對錯..都得有實做當基礎..:)
加海綿套跟原因跟套保險套的理由會不會一樣啊:o:o:o:o...衛生阿
引用:
作者: 999369
這樣東西就進(出)不去了(blush)引用:
作者: AndyChu
到時也許可以試看看有無差異囉~~~:)
不一樣喔，海棉套有聲學效果的啦
我知道啦，看設計，高階的說明書應該都有說怎麼用，試過在ARC測量的時候，套過附的海綿套，低頻顯示衰減得很厲害，說明書沒說的話要寫信去問原廠。
引用:
作者: 小葉
保險套通常會消音..........
看用哪一種啦? 有裝電池會振動的，這種會更大聲啦
引用:
作者: 小葉
什麼，你已經需要用到裝電池的了........
.........你沒看過振動保險套喔!.....你當是電動龜X?:|:|:|
引用:
作者: 小葉
我都沒在用呀.............
沒想到..投票至今..有測(想測)過~比例比想像還高..:O引用:
作者: 小葉
怎麼測也是一種重點呀...不過至少有測過就很好了
完全不想的只有20%不到...
我是測過才講這麼多的........數據跟我的耳朵不太搭尬....在十幾年前就知道了........不過不排除理念會影響喜好........
成也曹操..敗也曹操..凡事無絕對吧..哈!
數據沒有問題
是對應解讀的問題
例如曲線很漂亮，但不好聽，這兩者不是很有關聯的
或者說
曲線不好，但好聽多了
數據要正確解讀、使用與應用
所以我可能習慣了錯誤(sweat)(sweat)(sweat)(sweat)
所以才這麼積極要買測量機器，反覆再印證，不排除耳朵有問題。:D:D:D
如果耳朵有問題......那.....怎麼辦...........對了! 去看醫生。
引用:
作者: 葉sir
我們可以做一些簡單的耳力測試....(mooning)
引用:
作者: AndyChu
你的意思是....聽你在放屁????:O:O:O:O
引用:
作者: 小葉
真是有慧根.........(giggle)(giggle)(giggle)
引用:
作者: AndyChu
成天聽 hi-end的人..耳朵不可能有問題.8)引用:
作者: AndyChu
只有器材..空間..口袋..會有問題..:):D:D
ㄟ...那禮拜六.......你包個尿布在喇叭中間等大家鑑賞吧....噁!!! 還是那個麥克風包海綿套架在你屁股，錄音我回家聽.........
誰要捐麥克風????????
引用:
作者: 小葉
你的耳朵要進來聽清楚呀 (clap)
引用:
作者: AndyChu
等有120bit的時候再說
引用:
作者: 小葉
引用:
作者: 小葉
Mic+海綿：女士上來選顏色[黑色暗色不好 彩色的好]與音無關。 男士上來敲一敲有海綿沒聲[自己聽沒到]用力貼著海綿吹一吹。 不是專業的抓著麥骨猛喊 貼死釘 Ok 啦[加上用手勢悄傻的向工作員比一比]拉拉整整海綿悄傻笑笑 I am Pro。自已聲音不好的要拔掉都是它害的[海綿]。口水多的上來要換掉 因為 怕別人的口水比他更多 所以呢？我就像準備 保險套一樣 各式各樣 多种色彩 包君滿意|(|-(headbang)還有意境高的抓著 麥克 像在啃甘庶 [左啃右啃埋頭苦啃 突然吶喊又像抽筋痛苦]真替他擔心啃不動 唉！老兄呀！別把我的Mic給吞了(whew)還好有海綿 夠大~~(headbang):x引用:
作者: 小葉
今天去Shimmer家測試的結果
http://records2ear.blogspot.com/2010/09/shimmerdrc.html
由這幾張圖便能看出器材加上空間的特性。
空間反射音的量實在不小，必然對音樂重播有相當大的影響。
Microphone是ECM-8000，有頻率響應資料，不過這些圖上並未加上校正；
20KHz拉高3dB就是。
DRC好像也蠻好玩的喔！引用:
作者: drunkenlife
這是付費軟體嗎？
The IE-45 Audio Analysis System
http://www.ivie.com/products_inst_ie45intro.htm
http://www.proaudio.com/product_info...oducts_id=5369